RITlClE'EXSMTNATlOm: 


OF  SOCIALISM 


;;iiliU»ii(Jiiiii 


itinliiHiH- 


l\,  ^hM^ 


<J^^.-^-Oi^ 


^ 


US  ^' 


?;:,^6uA^^^^^ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2008  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/criticalexaminatOOmall 


A    CRITICAL    EXAMINATION 
OF    SOCIALISM 


w.     H 


BY 

M  A  L  L  O  C  K 


author  of 
'the  reconstruction  of  religious  belief" 


NEW    YORK    AND    LONDON 

HARPER   &   BROTHERS    PUBLISHERS 

M  C  M  V  1 1 


Copyright,  1907,  by   Harper  &  Brothers. 

AU  rights  reserved. 

Published  November,  1907. 


CONTENTS 

CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  The  Historical  Beginning  of  Socialism  as  an 

Ostensibly  Scientific  Theory i 

II.  The  Theory  of  Marx  and  the  Earlier  Social- 

ists Summarized 9 

III.  The  Error  of  Marx.     His  Omission  of  Direc- 

tive Ability.  Ability  and  Labor  De- 
fined         20 

IV.  The  Error  of  Marx,  Continued.     Capital  as 

THE  Implement  of  Ability 34 

V.  Repudiation  of  Marx  by  Modern  Socialists. 

Their  Recognition  of  Directive  Ability       44 

VI.  Repudiation  of  Marx  by  Modern  Socialists, 

Continued.  Their  Recognition  of  Capital 
as  the  Implement  of  Directive  Ability. 
Their  New  Position,  and  Their  New 
Theoretical  Difficulties 58 

VII.  Proximate  Difficulties.     Able  Men  as  a  Cor- 

poration of  State  Officials 73 

VIII.  The   Ultimate    Difficulty.     Speculative    At- 

tempts TO  Minimize  It 94 

IX.  The  Ultimate  Difficulty,  Continued.   Ability 

AND  Individual  Motive 116 

X.  Individual  Motive  and  Democracy     ....     136 

XI.  Christian    Socialism     as    a     Substitute     for 

Secular   Democracy     157 

iii 


CONTENTS 

CHAP.  PAGE 

XII.  The  Just  Reward  of  Labor  as  Estimated  by 

Its  Actual  Products 184 

XIII.  Interest   and   Abstract   Justice 212 

XIV.  The  Socialistic  Attack  on  Interest  and  the 

Nature  of  Its  Error 235 

XV.  Equality  of  Opportunity 261 

XVI.  The  Social  Policy  of  the   Future     ....  286 


PREFACE 

In  the  autumn  of  the  year  1906  I  was  honored 
by  an  invitation  from  the  Civic  Federation  of  New 
York  to  dehver  a  series  of  addresses,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  sociaHsm,  in  various  parts  of  America.  The 
project  being  a  new  one,  there  was  some  difficvilty 
in  deciding  on  the  manner  in  which  a  subject  so 
complex  might  be  most  profitably  discussed  be- 
fore a  succession  of  different  audiences.  The  course 
finally  adopted  was  that  of  dealing  with  various 
aspects  of  it  in  a  series  of  five  addresses,  which  were 
substantially,  though  not  verbally,  repeated  in  each 
of  the  cities  visited  by  me.  By  this  repetition  a 
consecutive  treatment  was  secured,  but  important 
aspects  of  the  question  were  necessarily  passed 
over,  and  it  was  not  infrequently  said  by  sym- 
pathizers and  opponents  alike  that  I  failed  to  per- 
ceive even  the  existence  of  certain  problems,  which 
I  had  as  a  fact  discussed  carefully  in  my  published 
works,  and  only  passed  over  on  the  occasions  now 
in  question  because  circumstances  rendered  their 
adequate  discussion  impossible.  In  the  present  vol- 
ume the  substance  of  my  addresses  is  reproduced, 
but  the  form  is  new,  and  the  principal  points  omitted 
in  them  are  here  discussed  in  detail. 


PREFACE 

The  subject  is  one,  however,  which,  if  it  were  to 
be  treated  exhaustively,  would  demand  a  series  of 
volumes  rather  than  a  series  of  chapters,  and  the 
arguments  here  set  forth  are  written  in  a  species  of 
short-hand,  and  at  almost  every  turn  are  susceptible 
of  indefinite  amplification.  But  for  practical  pur- 
poses a  short  book  which  is  suggestive  is  likely  to 
be  more  use  than  a  long  one,  whose  argument,  while 
more  complete,  might  be  less  easily  grasped  and 
less  easily  available  for  controversial  and  educative 
purposes. 

What  I  contemplate  doing  at  some  future  time  is 
to  reproduce  the  main  argument  of  this  volume  in 
a  more  purely  constructive  and  less  controversial 
form,  and,  having  thus  sketched  its  various  parts 
in  outline,  as  an  introduction,  to  elaborate  each 
part  separately  in  subsequent  portions  of  the  work. 
In  especial,  the  various  forms  and  gradations  of 
individual  manual  labor  would  be  analyzed  more 
fully  than  it  has  been  possible  to  analyze  them  here ; 
and  a  similarly  minute  treatment  would  be  applied 
to  the  directive  faculties,  from  their  simplest  and 
most  rudimentary  up  to  their  highest  forms.  The 
dynamics  of  motive,  their  relation  to  the  general 
structure  of  society,  the  different  kinds  of  life  and 
effort  imposed  by  nature  on  any  society  that  aims 
at  any  kind  of  civilization,  and  many  other  subjects 
which  need  not  be  here  specified,  would  all,  in  the 
same  way,  receive  separate  treatment. 

Meanwhile,  I  may  observe  that  the  criticisms 
which  my  American  addresses  received  at  the  time, 

vi 


PREFACE 

from  a  variety  of  socialistic  critics,  have  been  of 
great  service  to  me  here,  by  indicating  points  which 
required  to  be  specially  emphasized,  and  also  by 
enabling  me  to  show  how  modern  socialists  them- 
selves are  unable,  so  far  as  fundamental  principles 
are  concerned,  to  controvert  the  main  arguments 
brought  forward  in  this  volume. 

]\Iost  of  the  criticisms  directed  against  myself 
were  expressed  in  a  temperate  spirit,  of  which  I 
desire  to  record  my  recognition,  though  there  was 
one  signal  and  amusing  exception  which  the  reader 
of  the  following  pages  will  have  no  difficulty  in 
identifying.  I  may  further  mention  that  Mr.  G. 
Wilshire,  of  New  York,  the  active  editor  of  many 
socialistic  publications,  issued  a  small  volume  in 
which  he  discussed  my  American  addresses  seriatim. 
To  some  of  his  observations  I  have  referred  in 
notes.  Others  are  dealt  with,  by  implication  or 
otherwise,  in  the  text.  Mr.  Wilshire's  criticisms 
I  regard  as  very  favorably  representative  of  the 
arguments  and  ways  of  thinking  common  to  the 
more  intellectual  and  highly  educated  socialists  in 
Eiirope  and  America  alike,  and  his  resume  of  my 
own  arguments  is  courteous,  careful,  and,  in  in- 
tention at  least,  scrupulously  fair. 

W.  H.  M. 

London,  October,  IQ07. 


A    CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF 
SOCIALISM 


A    CRITICAL    EXAMINATION 
OF    SOCIALISM 

CHAPTER  I 

THE    HISTORICAL    BEGINNING    OF    SOCIALISM   AS    AN 
OSTENSIBLY    SCIENTIFIC    THEORY 

Socialism  an  unrealized  theory.  In  order  to  discuss  it,  it 
must  be  defined. 

Being  of  no  general  interest  except  as  a  nucleus  of  some 
general  movement,  we  must  identify  it  as  a  theory  which  has 
united  large  numbers  of  men  in  a  common  demand  for  change. 

As  the  definite  theoretical  nucleus  of  a  party  or  movement, 
socialism  dates  from  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
when  it  was  erected  into  a  formal  system  by  Karl  Marx. 

We  must  begin  our  examination  of  it  by  taking  it  in  this, 
its  earliest,  systematic  form. 

Socialism,  whatever  may  be  its  more  exact 
definition,  stands  for  an  organization  of  society, 
and  more  especially  for  an  economic  organization, 
radically  opposed  to,  and  differing  from,  the  or- 
ganization which  prevails  to-day;  so  much  we 
may  take  for  granted.  But  here,  before  going  fur- 
ther, it  is  necessary  to  free  ourselves  from  a  very 
common  confusion.     When  socialism,  as  thus  de- 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

fined,  is  spoken  of  as  a  thing  that  exists — as  a 
thing  that  has  risen  and  is  spreading — two  ideas 
are  apt  to  suggest  themselves  to  the  minds  of  all 
parties  equally,  of  which  one  coincides  with  facts, 
while  the  other  does  not,  having  indeed,  thus  far 
at  all  events,  no  appreciable  connection  with  them ; 
and  it  is  necessary  to  get  rid  of  the  false  idea,  and 
concern  ourselves  only  with  the  true. 

The  best  way  in  which  I  can  make  my  meaning 
clear  will  be  by  referring  to  a  point  with  regard  to 
which  the  earlier  socialistic  thinkers  may  be  fairly 
regarded  as  accurate  and  original  critics.  The  so- 
called  orthodox  economists  of  the  school  of  Mill 
and  Ricardo  accepted  the  capitalistic  system  as 
part  of  the  order  of  nature,  and  their  object  was 
mainly  to  analyze  the  peculiar  operations  incident 
to  it.  The  abler  among  the  socialists  were  fore- 
most in  pointing  out,  on  the  contrary,  a  fact  which 
now  would  not  be  denied  by  anybody:  that  capi- 
talism in  its  present  form  is  a  comparatively  modern 
phenomenon,  owing  its  origin  historically  to  the 
dissolution  of  the  feudal  system,  and  not  having 
entered  on  its  adolescence,  or  even  on  its  inde- 
pendent childhood,  till  a  time  which  may  be  roughly 
indicated  as  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
The  immediate  causes  of  its  then  accelerated  de- 
velopment were,  as  the  socialists  insist,  the  rapid 
invention  of  new  kinds  of  machinery,  and  more 
especially  that  of  steam  as  a  motor  power,  which 
together  inaugurated  a  revolution  in  the  methods 
of  production  generally.     Production   on  a  small 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

scale  gave  way  to  production  on  a  large.  The  in- 
dependent weavers,  for  example,  each  with  his  own 
loom,  were  wholly  unable  to  compete  with  the  mech- 
anisms of  the  new  factory;  their  looms,  by  being 
superseded,  were  virtually  taken  away  from  them ; 
and  these  men,  formerly  their  own  masters,  work- 
ing with  their  own  implements,  and  living  by  the 
sale  of  their  own  individual  products,  were  com- 
pelled to  pass  under  the  sway  of  a  novel  class,  the 
capitalists ;  to  work  with  implements  owned  by  the 
capitalists,  not  themselves ;  and  to  live  by  the  wages 
of  their  labor,  not  by  their  sale  of  the  products 
of  it. 

Such,  as  the  socialists  insist,  was  the  rise  of  the 
capitalistic  system;  and  when  once  it  had  been 
adequately  organized,  as  it  first  was,  in  England, 
it  proceeded,  they  go  on  to  observe,  to  spread  itself 
with  astonishing  rapidity,  all  other  methods  disap- 
pearing before  it,  through  their  own  comparative 
inefficiency.  But  when  socialists  or  their  opponents 
turn  from  capitalism  to  socialism,  and  speak  of 
how  socialism  has  risen  and  spread  likewise,  their 
language,  as  thus  applied,  has  no  meaning  whatever 
unless  it  is  interpreted  in  a  totally  new  sense.  For 
in  the  sense  in  which  socialists  speak  of  the  rise  and 
spread  of  capitalism,  socialism  has,  up  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  if  we  except  a  number  of  small  and  unsuc- 
cessful experiments,  never  risen,  or  spread,  or  had 
any  existence  at  all.  Capitalism  rose  and  spread  as 
an  actual  working  system,  which  multiplied  and  im- 
proved the  material  appliances  of  life  in  a  manner 

3 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

beyond  the  reach  of  the  older  system  displaced  by 
it.  It  realized  results  of  which  previously  man- 
kind had  hardly  dreamed.  Socialism,  on  the  other 
hand,  has  risen  and  spread  thus  far,  not  as  a  sys- 
tem which  is  threatening  to  supercede  capitalism  by 
its  actual  success  as  an  alternative  system  of  pro- 
duction, but  merely  as  a  theory  or  belief  that  such 
an  alternative  is  possible.  Let  us  take  any  country 
or  any  city  we  please — for  example,  let  us  say  Chi- 
cago, in  which  socialism  is  said  to  be  achieving  its 
most  hopeful  or  most  formidable  triumphs — -and 
we  shall  look  in  vain  for  a  sign  that  the  general 
productive  process  has  been  modified  by  socialistic 
principles  in  any  particular  whatsoever.  Socialism 
has  produced  resolutions  at  endless  public  meetings ; 
it  has  produced  discontent  and  strikes ;  it  has  ham- 
pered production  constantly.  But  socialism  has 
never  inaugurated  an  improved  chemical  process ;  it 
has  never  bridged  an  estuary,  or  built  an  ocean  liner ; 
it  has  never  produced  or  cheapened  so  much  as  a 
lamp  or  a  frying-pan.  It  is  a  theory  that  such 
things  could  be  accomplished  by  the  practical  ap- 
plication of  its  principles;  but,  except  for  the 
abortive  experiments  to  which  I  have  referred 
already,  it  is  thus  far  a  theory  only,  and  it  is  as  a 
theory  only  that  we  can  examine  it. 

What,  then,  as  a  theory,  are  the  distinctive 
features  of  socialism?  Here  is  a  question  which, 
if  we  address  it  indiscriminately  to  all  the  types  of 
people  who  now  call  themselves  socialists,  seems 
daily  more  impossible  to  answer;    for  every  day 

4 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

the  number  of  those  is  increasing  who  claim  for 
their  own  opinions  the  title  of  socialistic,  but  whose 
quarrel  with  the  existing  system  is  very  far  from 
apparent,  while  less  apparent  still  is  the  manner 
in  which  they  propose  to  alter  it.  The  persons  to 
whom  I  refer  consist  mainly  of  academic  students, 
professors,  clergymen,  and  also  of  emotional  ladies, 
who  enjoy  the  attention  of  footmen  in  faultless 
liveries,  and  say  their  prayers  out  of  prayer-books 
with  jewelled  clasps.  All  these  persons  unite  in 
the  general  assertion  that,  whatever  may  be  amiss 
with  the  world,  the  capitalistic  system  is  respon- 
sible for  it,  and  that  somehow  or  other  this  system 
ought  to  be  altered.  But  when  we  ask  them  to 
specify  the  details  as  to  which  alteration  is  neces- 
sary— what  precisely  are  the  parts  of  it  w^hich  they 
wish  to  abolish,  and  what,  if  these  were  abolished, 
they  would  introduce  as  a  substitute — one  of  them 
says  one  thing,  another  of  them  says  another,  and 
nobody  says  anything  on  which  three  of  them 
couTd  act  in  concert. 

Now  if  socialism  were  confined  to  such  persons 
as  these,  who  are  in  America  spoken  of  as  the 
"parlor  socialists,"  it  would  not  only  be  impossible 
to  tell  what  socialism  actually  was,  but  what  it 
was  or  was  not  would  be  immaterial  to  any  prac- 
tical man.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  between 
socialism  of  this  negligible  kind — this  sheet-light- 
ning of  sentiment  reflected  from  a  storm  elsewhere 
— and  the  socialism  which  is  really  a  factor  to  be 
reckoned  with  in  the  life  of  nations,  we  can  start 

5 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

with  drawing  a  line  which,  when  once  drawn,  is 
unmistakable.  Socialism  being  avowedly  a  theory 
which,  in  the  first  instance  is  illusive,  addresses  it- 
self to  the  many  as  distinct  from  and  opposed  to 
the  few,  it  is  only  or  mainly  the  fact  of  its  adoption 
by  the  many  which  threatens  to  render  it  a  prac- 
tical force  in  politics.  Its  practical  importance 
accordingly  depends  upon  two  things — firstly,  on 
its  possessing  a  form  sufficiently  definite  to  unite 
what  w^ould  otherwise  be  a  mass  of  heterogeneous 
units,  by  developing  in  all  of  them  a  common  tem- 
per and  purpose;  and,  secondly,  on  the  number  of 
those  who  can  be  taught  to  adopt  and  welcome  it. 
The  theory  of  socialism  is,  therefore,  as  a  practical 
force,  primarily  that  form  of  it  which  is  operative 
among  the  mass  of  socialists;  and  when  once  we 
realize  this,  w^e  shall  have  no  further  difficulty  in 
discovering  what  the  doctrines  are  with  which,  at 
all  events,  we  must  begin  our  examination.  We 
are  guided  to  our  starting-point  by  the  broad  facts 
of  history. 

The  rights  of  the  many  as  opposed  to  the  actual 
position  of  the  few — a  society  in  which  all  should 
be  equal,  not  only  in  political  status,  but  also  in 
social  circumstances.  Ideas  such  as  these  are  as 
old  as  the  days  of  Plato,  and  they  have,  from  time 
to  time  in  the  ancient  and  the  modern  world,  re- 
sulted in  isolated  and  abortive  attempts  to  realize 
them.  In  Europe  such  ideas  became  rife  during 
the  sixty  or  seventy  years  which  followed  the  great 
political  revolution  in  France.     Schemes  of  society 

6 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

were  formulated  which  were  to  carry  this  revolu- 
tion further,  and  concentrate  on  industrial  rather 
than  political  change.  Pictures  were  presented  to 
the  imagination,  and  the  world  was  invited  to  real- 
ize them,  of  societies  in  which  all  were  workers  on 
equal  terms,  and  groups  of  fraternal  citizens,  sepa- 
rated no  longer  by  the  egoisms  of  the  private  home, 
dwelt  together  in  palaces  called  "  phalansteries," 
which  appear  to  have  been  imaginary  anticipations 
of  the  Waldorf-Astoria  Hotel.  Here  they  were  to 
live  in  luxury,  feasting  at  common  tables ;  and  be- 
tween meals  the  men  were  to  work  in  the  fields 
singing,  while  a  lady  accompanied  their  voices  on 
a  grand  piano  under  a  hedge.  These  pictures,  how- 
ever, agreeable  as  they  were  to  the  fancy,  failed  to 
produce  any  great  effect  on  the  multitudes ;  for  the 
multitudes  felt  instinctively  that  they  were  too 
good  to  be  true.  That  such  was  the  case  is  ad- 
mitted by  socialistic  historians  themselves.  Social- 
ism during  this  period  was,  they  say,  in  its  "Uto- 
pian stage."  It  was  not  even  sufficiently  coherent 
to  have  acquired  a  distinctive  name  till  the  word 
"  socialism ' '  was  coined  in  connection  with  the  views 
of  Owen,  which  suffered  discredit  from  the  failure 
of  his  attempts  to  put  them  into  practice.  Social- 
ism in  those  days  was  a  dream,  but  it  was  not 
science;  and  in  a  world  which  was  rapidly  coming 
to  look  upon  science  as  supreme,  nothing  could  con- 
vince men  generally — not  even  the  most  ignorant 
— which  had  not,  or  was  not  supposed  to  have,  the 
authority  of  science  at  the  back  of  it. 

7 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

Such  being  the  situation,  as  the  sociaHsts  accu- 
rately describe  it,  an  eminent  thinker  arose  who  at 
last  supplied  what  was  wanting.  He  provided  the 
unorganized  aspirations,  which  by  this  time  were 
known  as  socialism,  with  a  formula  which  was  at 
once  definite,  intelligible,  and  comprehensive,  and 
had  all  the  air  of  being  rigidly  scientific  also.  By 
this  means  thoughts  and  feelings,  previously  vague 
and  fluid,  like  salts  held  in  solution,  were  crystal- 
lized into  a  clear-cut  theory  which  was  absolutely 
the  same  for  all;  which  all  who  accepted  it  could 
accept  with  the  same  intellectual  confidence;  and 
which  thus  became  a  moral  and  mental  nucleus 
around  which  the  efforts  and  hopes  of  a  coherent 
party  could  group  themselves. 

Such  was  the  feat  accomplished  by  Karl  Marx, 
through  his  celebrated  treatise  on  Capital,  which 
was  published  between  fifty  and  sixty  years  ago, 
and  which  has,  since  then,  throughout  all  Europe 
and  America,  been  acclaimed  as  the  Magna  Charta, 
or  the  Bible,  of  "scientific  socialism." 

Whatever  changes — and  there  are  changes  which 
will  presently  occupy  our  attention — which  social- 
ism, as  a  theory,  has  subsequently  undergone,  it  is 
with  the  theory  of  Marx,  and  the  temper  of  mind 
resulting  from  it,  that  socialism,  regarded  as  a  prac- 
tical force,  begins ;  and  among  the  majority  of  so- 
cialists this  theory  is  predominant  still.  In  view, 
therefore,  of  the  requirements  of  logic,  of  history, 
and  of  contemporary  facts,  our  own  examination 
must  begin  with  the  theory  of  Marx  likewise. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  THEORY  OF  MARX  AND  THE  EARLIER  SOCIALISTS 
SUMMARIZED 

The  doctrine  of  Marx  that  all  wealth  is  produced  by  labor. 

His  recognition  that  the  possibilities  of  distribution  rest  on 
the  facts  of  production. 

His  theory  of  labor  as  the  sole  producer  of  wealth  avowedly 
derived  from  Ricardo's  theory  of  value. 

His  theory  of  capital  as  consisting  of  implements  of  pro- 
duction, which  are  embodiments  of  past  labor,  and  his  theory 
of  modern  capitalism  as  representing  nothing  but  a  gradual 
abstraction,  by  a  wholly  unproductive  class,  of  these  imple- 
ments from  the  men  who  made  them,  and  who  alone  contrib- 
ute anything  to  their  present  productive  use. 

His  theory  that  wages  could  never  rise,  but  must,  under 
capitalism,  sink  all  over  the  world  to  the  amount  which  would 
just  keep  the  laborers  from  starvation,  when,  driven  by  neces- 
sity, they  will  rebel,  and,  repossessing  themselves  of  their  own 
implements,  will  be  rich  forever  afterwards  by  using  them  for 
their  own  benefit. 

All  radical  revolutions  which  are  advocated  in 
the  interests  of  the  people  are  commended  to  the 
people,  and  the  people  are  invited  to  accomplish 
them,  on  the  ground  that  majorities  are,  if  they 
would  only  realize  it,  capable  of  molding  society 
in  any  manner  they  please.  As  applied  to  matters 
of  legislation  and  government,  this  theory  is  suffi- 

9 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

ciently  familiar  to  everybody.  It  has  been  elabo- 
rated, in  endless  detail,  and  has  expressed  itself  in 
the  constitutions  of  all  modern  democracies.  What 
Karl  Marx  did,  and  did  for  the  first  time,  was  to 
invest  this  theory  of  the  all-efficiency  of  the  ma- 
jority with  a  definiteness,  in  respect  of  distribution 
of  wealth,  similar  to  that  with  which  it  had  been 
invested  already  in  respect  of  the  making  of  laws 
and  the  dictation  of  national  policies. 

The  practical  outcome  of  the  scientific  reasoning 
of  Marx  is  summed  up  in  the  formula  which  has 
figured  as  the  premise  and  conclusion  of  every  con- 
gress of  his  followers,  of  every  book  or  manifesto 
published  by  them,  and  of  every  propagandist  ora- 
tion uttered  by  them  at  street-corners — namely, 
"All  wealth  is  produced  by  labor,  therefore  to  the 
laborers  all  wealth  is  due" — a  doctrine  in  itself  not 
novel  if  taken  as  a  pious  generality,  but  presented 
by  Marx  as  the  outcome  of  an  elaborate  system  of 
economics. 

The  efficiency  of  this  doctrine  as  an  instrument 
of  agitation  is  obvious.  It  appeals  at  once  to  two 
universal  instincts:  the  instinct  of  cupidity  and 
the  instinct  of  universal  justice.  It  stimulates  the 
laborers  to  demand  more  than  they  receive  already, 
and  it  stimulates  to  demand  the  more  on  the 
ground  that  they  themselves  have  produced  it.  It 
teaches  them  that  the  wealth  of  every  man  who 
is  not  a  manual  laborer  is  something  stolen  from 
themselves  which  ought  to  be  and  which  can  be 
restored  to  them. 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

Now  whatever  may  be  the  value  of  such  teaching 
as  a  contribution  to  economic  science,  it  illustrates 
by  its  success  one  cardinal  truth,  and  by  implica- 
tion it  bears  witness  to  another.  The  first  truth  is 
that,  no  matter  how  desirable  any  object  may  be 
which  is  obtruded  on  the  imagination  of  anybody, 
nobody  will  bestir  himself  in  a  practical  way  to 
demand  it  until  he  can  be  persuaded  to  believe 
that  its  attainment  is  practically  possible.  The 
other  is  this :  that  the  possibilities  of  redistributing 
wealth  depend  on  the  causes  by  which  wealth  is 
produced.  All  wealth,  says  Marx,  can  practically 
be  appropriated  by  the  laborers.  But  why?  Be- 
cause the  laborers  themselves  comprise  in  their  own 
labor  all  the  forces  that  produce  it.  If  its  pro- 
duction necessitated  the  activity  of  any  persons 
other  than  themselves,  these  other  persons  would 
inevitably  have  some  control  over  its  distribution ; 
since  if  it  were  distributed  in  a  manner  of  which 
these  other  persons  disapproved,  it  would  be  open 
to  them  to  refuse  to  take  part  in  its  production 
any  longer;  and  there  would,  in  consequence,  be  no 
wealth,  or  less  wealth,  to  distribute. 

Let  us,  then,  examine  the  precise  sense  and  man- 
ner in  which  this  theory  of  labor  as  the  sole  pro- 
ducer of  wealth  is  elaborated  and  defended  by 
Marx  in  his  Bible  of  Scientific  Socialism.  His 
argument,  though  the  expression  of  it  is  very  often 
pedantic  and  encumbered  with  superfluous  mathe- 
matical formulas,  is  ingenious  and  interesting,  and 
is   associated   with   historical   criticism   which,    in 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

spite  of  its  defects,  is  valuable.  Marx  was,  in- 
deed, foremost  among  those  thinkers  already  re- 
ferred to  who  first  insisted  on  the  fact  that  the 
economic  conditions  of  to-day  are  mainly  a  novel 
development  of  others  which  went  before  them, 
and  that,  having  their  roots  in  history,  they  must 
be  studied  by  the  historical  method.  He  recog- 
nized, however,  that  for  practical  purposes  each 
age  must  concern  itself  with  its  own  environment; 
and  his  logical  starting  -  point  is  an  analysis  of 
wealth-production  as  it  exists  to-day.  He  begins 
by  insisting  on  the  fact  that  labor  in  the  modern 
world  is  divided  with  such  a  general  and  such  an 
increasing  minuteness  that  each  laborer  produces 
one  kind  of  product  only,  of  which  he  himself  can 
consume  but  a  small  fraction,  and  often  consumes 
nothing.  His  own  product,  therefore,  has  for  him 
the  character  of  wealth  only  because  he  is  able  to 
exchange  it  for  commodities  of  other  kinds;  and 
the  amount  of  wealth  represented  by  it  depends 
upon  what  the  quantity  of  other  assorted  com- 
modities, which  he  can  get  in  exchange  for  it,  is. 
What,  then,  is  the  common  measure,  in  accordance 
with  which,  as  a  fact,  one  kind  of  commodity  will 
exchange  for  any  other,  or  any  others  ?  For  his 
answer  to  this  question  Marx  goes  to  the  orthodox 
economists  of  his  time — the  recognized  exponents  of 
the  system  against  which  his  own  arguments  were 
directed — and  notably,  among  these,  to  Ricardo; 
and,  adopting  Ricardo's  conclusions,  as  though  they 
were  axiomatic,  he  asserts  that  the  measure  of  ex- 

12 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

change  between  one  class  of  commodities  and  an- 
other— such,  for  example,  as  cigars,  printed  books, 
and  chronometers — is  the  amount  of  manual  labor, 
estimated  in  terms  of  time,  which  is  on  an  average 
necessary  to  the  production  of  each  of  them.  His 
meaning  in  this  respect  is  illustrated  with  picto- 
rial vividness  by  his  teaching  with  regard  to  the 
form  in  which  the  measure  of  exchange  should  em- 
body itself.  This,  he  said,  ought  not  to  be  gold  or 
silver,  but  "labor-certificates,"  which  would  indi- 
cate that  whoever  possessed  them  had  labored  for 
so  many  hours  in  producing  no  matter  what,  and 
which  would  purchase  anything  else,  or  any  quan- 
tity of  anything  else,  representing  an  equal  expen- 
diture of  labor  of  any  other  kind. 

Having  thus  settled,  as  it  seemed  to  him  beyond 
dispute,  that  manual  labor,  estimated  in  terms  of 
time,  is  the  sole  source  and  measure  of  economic 
values  or  of  wealth,  Marx  goes  on  to  point  out  that, 
by  the  improvement  of  industrial  methods,  labor 
in  the  modern  world  has  been  growing  more  and 
more  productive,  so  that  each  labor-hour  results 
in  an  increased  yield  of  commodities.  Thus  a  man 
who  a  couple  of  centuries  ago  could  have  only  just 
kept  himself  alive  by  the  products  of  his  entire 
labor-day,  can  now  keep  himself  alive  by  the  prod- 
ucts of  half  or  a  quarter  of  it.  The  products  of 
the  remainder  of  his  labor-day  are  what  Marx  called 
a  "surplus  value,"  meaning  by  this  phrase  all  that 
output  of  wealth  which  is  beyond  what  is  practi- 
cally necessary   to  keep  the  laborer  alive.     But 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMIXATIOX    OF    SOCIALISM 

what,  he  asks,  becomes  of  this  surplus?  Does  it 
go  to  the  laborers  who  have  produced  it  ?  No,  he 
replies.  On  the  contrarv%  as  fast  as  it  is  produced, 
it  is  abstracted  from  the  laborer  in  a  manner,  which 
he  goes  on  to  analyze,  by  the  capitalist. 

Marx  here  advances  to  the  second  stage  of  his 
argument.  Capital,  as  he  conceives  of  it,  is  the 
tools  or  instruments  of  production;  and  modem 
capital  for  him  means  those  vast  aggregates  of 
msLchinery  by  the  use  of  which  in  most  industries 
the  earlier  implements  have  been  displaced.  Now 
here,  says  Marx,  the  capitalist  is  sure  to  interpose 
with  the  objection  that  the  increased  output  of 
wealth  is  due,  not  to  labor,  but  to  the  machinery, 
and  that  the  laborer,  as  such,  has  consequently  no 
claim  on  it.  But  to  this  objection  Marx  is  ready 
with  the  following  answer — that  the  machinery 
itself  is  nothing  but  past  labor  in  disguise.  It  is 
past  labor  crystallized,  or  embodied  in  an  external 
form,  and  used  by  present  labor  to  assist  itself  in 
its  own  operations.  Every  wheel,  crank,  and  con- 
necting-rod, every  rivet  in  every  boiler,  owes  its 
shape  and  its  place  to  labor,  and  labor  only.  Labor, 
therefore — the  labor  of  the  average  multitude — re- 
mains the  sole  agent  in  the  production  of  wealth, 
after  all. 

Capital,  however,  as  thus  understood,  has,  he 
says,  this  peculiarity — that,  being  labor  in  an  ex- 
ternalized and  also  in  a  permanent  form,  it  is 
capable  of  being  detached  from  the  laborers  and 
appropriated  by  other  people;   and  the  essence  of 

14 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

modem  capitalism  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
this — the  appropriation  of  the  instruments  of  pro- 
duction by  a  minority  who  are  not  producers.  So 
long  as  the  implements  of  production  were  small 
and  simple,  and  such  that  each  could  be  used  by 
one  man  or  family,  the  divorce  between  the  laborer 
and  his  implements  was  not  easy  to  accomplish; 
but  in  proportion  as  these  simple  implements  were 
developed  into  the  aggregated  mechanisms  of  the 
factory,  each  of  which  aggregates  was  used  in  com- 
mon by  hundreds  and  even  by  thousands  of  labor- 
ers, the  link  between  the  implement  and  the  user 
was  broken  by  an  automatic  process;  for  a  single 
organized  mechanism  used  by  a  thousand  men 
could  not,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  owned  by 
each  one  of  the  thousand  individually;  and  collec- 
tive ownership  by  all  of  them  was  an  idea  as  yet 
unborn.  Under  these  circumstances,  with  the 
growth  of  modem  machinery,  by  what  Marx  looked 
upon  as  a  kind  of  historical  fatality,  the  ownership 
of  the  implements  of  production  passed  rapidly 
into  the  hands  of  a  class  whose  activities  were  pure- 
ly acquisitive,  and  had  no  true  connection  with  the 
process  of  production  at  all;  and  this  class,  he  said, 
constitutes  the  capitalists  of  the  modem  w^orld. 

The  results  of  this  process  have,  according  to 
him,  been  as  follows:  Society  has  become  divided 
into  two  contrasted  groups — an  enormous  group, 
and  a  small  one.  The  enormous  group — the  great 
body  of  every  nation — the  people — the  laboring 
mass — the  one  true  producing  power — has  been  left 

15 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

without  any  implements  by  means  of  which  its 
labor  can  exert  itself,  and  these  implements  have 
been  monopolized  by  the  small  group  alone.  The 
people  at  large,  in  fact,  have  become  like  the  em- 
ployes of  a  single  mill-owner,  who  have  no  choice 
but  to  work  within  the  walls  of  that  mill  or  starve ; 
and  the  possessing  class  at  large  has  become  like 
the  owner  of  such  a  single  mill,  who,  holding  the 
keys  of  life  and  death  in  his  hands,  is  able  to  impose 
on  the  mill  -  workers  almost  any  terms  he  pleases 
as  the  price  of  admission  to  his  premises  and  to  the 
privilege  of  using  his  machinery;  and  the  price 
which  such  an  owner,  so  situated,  will  exact  (such 
was  the  contention  of  Marx)  inevitably  must  come, 
and  historically  has  come,  to  this — namely,  the 
entire  amount  of  goods  which  the  laboring  class 
produces,  except  such  a  minimum  as  will  just 
enable  its  members  to  keep  themselves  in  working 
order,  and  to  reproduce  their  kind.  Thus  all  capi- 
tal, as  at  present  owned,  all  profits,  and  all  interest 
on  capital,  are  neither  more  nor  less  than  thefts 
from  the  laboring  class  of  commodities  which  are 
produced  by  the  laboring  class  alone. 

The  argument  of  Marx  is  not,  however,  finished 
yet.  There  remains  a  third  part  of  it  which  we 
still  have  to  consider.  Writing  as  he  did  almost 
half  a  century  ago,  he  said  that  the  process  of 
capitalistic  appropriation  had  not  yet  completed 
itself.  A  remnant  of  producers  on  a  restricted  scale 
survived,  still  forming  a  middle  class,  which  was 
neither  rich  nor  poor.     But,  he  continued,  in  all 

i6 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

capitalistic  countries  a  new  movement,  inevitable 
from  the  first,  had  set  in,  and  its  pace  was  daily 
accelerating.  Just  as  the  earlier  capitalists  swal- 
lowed up  most  of  the  small  producers,  so  w^ere  the 
greater  capitalists  swallowing  up  the  smaller,  and 
the  middle  class  which  survived  was  disappearing 
day  by  day.  Wages,  meanwhile,  w^ere  regulated 
by  an  iron  law.  Under  the  system  of  capitalism 
it  was  an  absolute  impossibility  that  they  could 
rise.  As  he  put  it,  in  language  which  has  since  be- 
come proverbial,  "The  rich  are  getting  richer;  the 
poor  poorer;  the  middle  class  is  being  crushed 
out";  and  the  time,  he  continued,  was  in  sight 
already — it  would  arrive,  according  to  him,  before 
the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century — when  nothing 
would  be  left  but  a  handful  of  idle  and  preposterous 
millionaires  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  mass  of  miser- 
able ragamuffins  who  provided  all  the  millions  on 
the  other,  having  for  themselves  only  enough  food 
and  clothing  to  enable  them  to  move  their  muscles 
and  protect  their  nakedness  from  the  frost.  Then, 
said  Marx,  when  this  contrast  has  completed  itself, 
the  situation  will  be  no  longer  tolerable.  "Then  the 
knell  of  the  capitalistic  system  will  have  sounded." 
The  producers  will  assert  themselves  under  the 
pressure  of  an  irresistible  impulse;  they  will  re- 
possess themselves  of  the  implements  of  produc- 
tion of  which  they  have  been  so  long  deprived. 
"The  expropriators  will  in  their  turn  be  expro- 
priated"; and,  the  laborers  thenceforth  owning  the 
implements    of    production    collectively,    all    the 

17 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

wealth  of  the  world  will  forever  afterwards  be 
theirs. 

This  concluding  portion  of  the  gospel  of  Marx — 
its  prophecies — has  been  in  many  of  its  details  so 
completely  falsified  by  events  that  even  his  most 
ardent  disciples  no  longer  insist  on  it.  I  have  only 
mentioned  it  here  because  of  the  further  light  which 
it  throws  on  what  alone,  in  this  discussion,  concerns 
us — namely,  the  Marxian  theory  of  labor  as  the 
sole  producer  of  wealth,  and  the  absolute  nullity, 
so  far  as  production  goes,  of  every  form  of  activity 
associated  with  the  possession  of  capital,  or  with 
any  class  but  the  laboring. 

This  theory  of  production,  then,  which  has  been 
the  foundation  of  socialism  as  a  party  —  or  as 
Gronliind,  a  disciple  of  Marx,  calls  it,  "its  idee 
mere'' — and  which  is  still  its  foundation  for  the 
great  majority  of  socialists,  we  will  now  examine 
in  detail,  and,  considering  how  complex  are  the 
processes  of  production  in  the  modern  world,  ask 
how  far  it  gives  us,  or  fails  to  give  us,  even  an 
approximately  complete  account  of  them. 

We  shall  find  that,  in  spite  of  the  plausibility 
with  which  the  talent  of  Marx  invested  it,  this 
basic  doctrine  of  so-called  scientific  socialism  is 
the  greatest  intellectual  mare's-nest  of  the  century 
which  has  just  ended;  and  when  once  we  have 
realized  with  precision  on  what,  in  the  modern 
world,  the  actual  efficiency  of  the  productive  proc- 
ess depends,  we  shall  see  that  the  analysis  of  Marx 
bears  about  the  same  relation  to  the  economic  facts 

i8 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

of  to-day  that  the  child's  analysis  of  matter  into 
the  four  traditional  elements,  or  the  doctrine  of 
Thales  that  everything  is  made  of  water,  bears  to 
the  facts  of  chemistry  as  modern  science  has  re- 
vealed them  to  us. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE  ERROR  OF  MARX.      HIS  OMISSION  OF  DIRECTIVE 
ABILITY.       ABILITY    AND    LABOR   DEFINED 

The  theory  of  Marx  analyzed.  It  is  true  as  applied  to 
primitive  communities,  where  the  amount  of  wealth  produced 
is  very  small,  but  it  utterly  fails  to  account  for  the  increased 
wealth  of  the  modern  world. 

Labor,  as  Marx  conceived  of  it,  can  indeed  increase  in  pro- 
ductivity in  two  ways,  but  to  a  small  degree  only,  neither  of 
which  explains  the  vast  increase  of  wealth  during  the  past 
hundred  and  fifty  years. 

The  cause  of  this  is  the  development  of  a  class  which,  not 
laboring  itself,  concentrates  exceptional  knowledge  and  energy 
on  the  task  of  directing  the  labor  of  others,  as  an  author  does 
when,  by  means  of  his  manuscript,  he  directs  the  labor  of 
compositors. 

Formal  definition  of  the  parts  played  respectively  by  the 
faculties  of  the  laboring  and  those  of  the  directing  classes. 

In  approaching  the  opinions  of  another,  with 
whom  we  are  about  to  differ,  we  gain  much  in  clear- 
ness if  at  starting  we  can  find  some  point  of  agree- 
ment with  him.  In  the  case  of  Marx  we  can  find 
this  without  difficulty;  for  the  first  observation 
w^hich  our  subject  will  naturally  suggest  to  us  is 
an  admission  that,  within  limits,  his  theory  of  pro- 
duction is  true.  Whatever  may  be  the  agencies 
which  are  required  to  produce  wealth,  human  effort 

20 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

is  one  of  them ;  and  into  whatever  kinds  this  neces- 
sary agency  may  divide  itself,  one  kind  must  always 
be  labor,  in  the  sense  in  which  Marx  understood  it 
— in  other  words,  that  use  of  the  hands  and  muscles 
by  which  the  majority  of  mankind  have  always 
gained  their  livelihood. 

It  is,  moreover,  easy  to  point  out  such  cases  in 
which  all  the  wealth  that  is  produced  is  produced 
by  labor  only.  The  simplest  of  such  cases  are  sup- 
plied us  by  the  lowest  savages,  who  manage,  by 
their  utmost  exertions,  to  provide  themselves  with 
the  barest  necessaries.  Such  cases  show  that  labor, 
wherever  it  exists,  produces  at  least  a  minimum  of 
what  men  require ;  for  if  it  were  not  so  there  would 
be  no  men  to  labor.  Such  cases  show  also  another 
thing.  The  most  primitive  races  possess  rude  im- 
plements of  some  kind,  which  any  pair  of  hands 
can  fashion,  just  as  any  pair  of  hands  can  use  them. 
These  rude  implements  are  capital  in  its  embryonic 
form ;  and,  so  far  as  they  go,  they  verify  the  Marx- 
ian theory  that  capital  is  nothing  but  past  labor 
crystallized. 

Nor  need  we,  in  order  to  see  labor,  past  and 
present,  operating  and  producing  in  a  practically 
unalloyed  condition,  go  to  savage  or  even  semi- 
civilized  countries.  The  same  thing  may  be  seen 
among  groups  of  peasant  proprietors,  which  still 
survive  here  and  there  in  the  remoter  parts  of 
Europe.  These  men  and  their  families,  by  their 
own  unaided  labor,  produce  nearly  everything 
which  they  eat  and  wear  and  use.     Mill,  in  his 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

treatise  on  Political  Economy,  gives  us  an  account 
of  this  condition  of  things,  as  prevailing  among  the 
peasants  in  certain  districts  of  Germany.  "They 
labor  early  and  late,"  he  says,  quoting  from  a  Ger- 
man eulogist.  "They  plod  on  from  day  to  day, 
and  from  year  to  year,  the  most  untirable  of  human 
animals."  The  German  writer  admires  them  as 
men  who  are  their  own  masters.  Mill  holds  them 
up  as  a  shining  and  instructive  example  of  the 
magic  effect  of  ownership  in  intensifying  human 
labor.  In  any  case  such  men  are  examples  of  two 
things — of  labor  operating  as  the  sole  productive 
agency,  and  also  of  such  labor  self-intensified  to 
its  utmost  pitch.  And  what  does  the  labor  of  these 
men  produce?  According  to  the  authority  from 
which  Mill  quotes,  it  produces  just  enough  to  keep 
them  above  the  level  of  actual  want.  Here,  then, 
we  have  an  unexceptionable  example  of  the  wealth- 
producing  power  of  labor  pure  and  simple ;  and  if  we 
imagine  an  entire  nation  of  men  who,  as  their  own 
masters,  worked  under  like  conditions,  we  should 
have  an  example  of  the  same  thing  on  a  larger  and 
more  instructive  scale.  We  should  have  a  whole 
nation  which  produced  only  just  enough  to  keep  it 
above  the  level  of  actual  bodily  want. 

And  now  let  us  turn  from  production  in  an 
imaginary  nation  such  as  this,  and  compare  it  with 
production  at  large  among  the  civilized  nations  of 
to-day.  Nobody  could  insist  on  the  contrast  be- 
tween the  efficiency  of  the  two  processes  more 
strongly  than  do  the  socialists  themselves.     The 

22 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

aggregate  wealth  of  the  civilized  nations  to-day  is, 
they  say,  so  enormous — it  consists  of  such  a  mul- 
titude of  daily  renewed  goods  and  services — that 
luxuries  undreamed  of  by  the  laborer  of  earlier 
times  might  easily  be  made  as  abundant  for  every 
household  as  water.  In  other  words,  if  we  take 
a  million  men,  admittedly  consisting  of  laborers 
pure  and  simple  in  the  first  place,  and  the  same 
number  of  men  exerting  themselves  under  modem 
conditions  in  the  second  place,  the  industrial  efforts 
of  the  second  million  are,  hour  for  hour,  indefinitely 
more  productive  than  the  industrial  efforts  of  the 
first.  If,  for  example,  we  take  the  case  of  England, 
and  compare  the  product  produced  per  head  of  the 
industrial  population  towards  the  close  of  the  sev- 
enteenth century,  with  the  product  produced  less 
than  two  centuries  afterwards,  at  the  time  when 
Marx  was  writing  his  work  on  Capital,  the  later 
product  will,  according  to  the  estimate  of  statisti- 
cians, stand  to  the  earlier  in  the  proportion  of  thirty- 
three  to  seven. 

Now  if  we  adopt  the  scientific  theory  of  Marx 
that  labor  pure  and  simple  is  the  sole  producer  of 
wealth,  and  that  labor  is  productive  in  proportion 
to  the  hours  devoted  to  it,  how  has  it  happened — 
this  is  our  crucial  question — that  the  amount  of 
labor  which  produced  seven  at  one  period  should 
produce  thirty-three  at  another?  How  are  we  to 
explain  the  presence  of  the  additional  twenty-six  ? 

The  answer  of  Marx,  and  of  those  who  reason 
like   him,  is   that,   owing  to  the  development  of 

23 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

knowledge,  mechanical  and  chemical  especially,  and 
the  consequent  development  of  industrial  methods 
and  machinery,  labor  as  a  whole  has  itself  become 
more  productive.  But  to  say  this  is  merely  beg- 
ging the  question.  To  what  is  this  development 
of  knowledge,  of  methods,  and  of  machinery  due? 
Is  it  due  to  such  labor  as  that  of  the  "untirable 
human  animals,"  to  which  Mill  refers  as  an  example 
of  labor  in  its  intensest  form?  In  a  word,  does 
ordinary  labor,  or  the  industrial  effort  of  the  ma- 
jority, contain  in  itself  any  principle  of  advance 
at  all  ? 

We  must,  in  order  to  do  justice  to  any  theory, 
consider  not  only  the  points  on  which  its  exponents 
lay  the  greatest  stress,  but  also  those  which  they 
recognize  as  implied  in  it,  or  which  we  may  see  to 
be  implied  in  it  ourselves.  And  if  we  consider  the 
theory  of  Marx  in  this  way,  we  shall  see  that  labor, 
in  the  sense  in  which  he  understands  the  word,  does 
contain  principles  of  advance  which  are  of  two  dis- 
tinguishable kinds. 

One  of  these  is  recognized  by  Marx  himself. 
Just  as,  when  he  says  that  labor  is  the  sole  produc- 
tive agency,  he  assumes  the  gifts  of  nature,  which 
provide  it  with  something  to  work  upon,  so,  when 
he  conceives  of  labor  as  the  effort  of  hand  and 
muscle,  he  assumes  a  human  mind  behind  these 
by  which  hand  and  muscle  are  directed.  Such 
being  the  case,  he  expressly  admits  also  that  mind 
is  in  some  cases  a  more  efficient  director  than  in 
others,  and  is  able  to  train  the  hands  and  muscles 

24 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  the  laborer,  so  that  these  acquire  the  quaUty 
which  is  commonly  called  skill.  Ruskin,  who  as- 
serted, like  Marx,  that  labor  is  the  sole  producer, 
used  in  this  respect  a  precisely  similar  argument. 
He  defined  skill  as  faculty  which  exceptional  powers 
of  mind  impart  to  the  hands  of  those  by  whom  such 
powers  are  possessed,  from  the  bricklayer  who,  in 
virtue  of  mere  alertness  and  patience,  can  lay  in 
an  hour  more  bricks  than  his  fellows,  up  to  a  Ra- 
phael, whose  hands  can  paint  a  Madonna,  while 
another  man's  could  hardly  be  trusted  to  distem- 
per a  wall  evenly. 

Now  in  skill,  as  thus  defined,  we  have  doubtless 
a  correct  explanation  of  how  mere  labor — the  man- 
ual effort  of  the  individual — may  produce,  in  the 
case  of  some  men,  goods  whose  value  is  great,  and 
goods,  in  the  case  of  other  men,  whose  value  is 
comparatively  small;  and  since  some  epochs  are 
more  fertile  in  developed  skill  than  others,  an  equal 
amount  of  labor  on  the  part  of  the  same  community 
may  produce,  in  one  century,  goods  of  greater  aggre- 
gate value  than  it  was  able  to  produce  in  the  cen- 
tury that  went  before  it.  But  these  goods,  whose 
superior  value  is  due  to  exceptional  skill — or,  as 
would  commonly  be  said,  to  qualities  of  superior 
craftsmanship — though  they  form  some  of  the  most 
coveted  articles  of  the  wealth  of  the  modern  world, 
are  not  typical  of  it;  and  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  majority,  they  are  the  part  of  it  which  is 
least  important.  The  goods  whose  value  is  due  to 
exceptional  craftsmanship — such  as  an  illuminated 

25 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

manuscript,  for  example,  or  a  vase  by  Benvenuto 
Cellini — are  always  few  in  number,  and  can  be  pos- 
sessed by  the  few  only.  The  distinctive  feature  of 
wealth-production  in  the  modern  world,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  the  multiplication  of  goods  relatively  to 
the  number  of  the  producers  of  them,  and  the  con- 
sequent cheapening  of  each  article  individually. 
The  skill  of  the  craftsman  gives  an  exceptional 
value  to  the  particular  articles  on  which  his  own 
hands  are  engaged.  It  does  not  communicate  it- 
self to  the  labor  of  the  ordinary  men  around  him. 
The  agency  which  causes  the  increasing  and  sus- 
tains the  increased  output  of  necessaries,  comforts, 
and  conveniences  in  the  progressive  nations  of  to- 
day must  necessarily  be  an  agency  of  some  kind  or 
other  which  raises  the  productivity  of  industrial 
exertion  as  a  whole.  Those,  therefore,  who  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  the  productivity  of  modern  com- 
munities has,  relatively  to  their  numbers,  undergone 
an  increase  which  is  general,  still  maintain  that  the 
sole  productive  agency  is  labor,  must  seek  for  an 
explanation  of  this  increase  in  some  other  fact 
than  skill. 

And  without  trangressing  the  limits  which  the 
theory  of  Marx  imposes  on  us,  such  a  further  fact 
is  very  easy  to  find.  Adam  Smith  opens  his  Wealth 
of  Nations  with  a  discussion  of  it.  The  chief  cause, 
he  says,  which  in  all  progressive  countries  increases 
the  productive  power  of  the  individual  laborer, 
is  not  the  development  among  a  few  of  poten- 
tialities which  are  above  the  average,  but  a  more 

26 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

effective  development  of  potentialities  common 
to  all,  in  consequence  of  labor  being  divided,  so 
that  each  man  devotes  his  life  to  the  doing  of 
some  one  thing.  Thus  if  ten  ordinary  men  were 
to  engage  in  the  business  of  pin-making,  each  mak- 
ing every  part  of  every  pin  for  himself,  each  man 
would  probably  complete  but  one  pin  in  a  day. 
But  if  each  man  makes  one  part,  and  nothing  else 
but  that,  thus  repeating  incessantly  a  single  series 
of  motions,  each  will  acquire  the  knack  of  working 
with  such  rapidity  that  the  ten  together  will  make 
daily,  not  ten  pins,  but  some  thousands.  Here  we 
have  labor  divided  by  its  different  applications, 
but  not  requiring  different  degrees  of  capacity. 
We  have  the  average  labor  of  the  average  man 
still.  And  here  we  have  a  fact  which,  unlike  the 
fact  of  skill — a  thing  in  its  nature  confined  to  the 
few  only — affords  a  real  explanation,  up  to  a  cer- 
tain point,  of  how  ordinary  labor  as  a  whole,  with- 
out ceasing  to  be  ordinary  labor,  may  rise  from  a 
lower  to  a  higher  grade  of  efficiency. 

But  such  simple  divisions  of  labor  as  those  which 
are  here  in  question  fail,  for  a  reason  which  will  be 
specified  in  another  moment,  to  carry  us  far  in 
the  history  of  industrial  progress.  They  do  but 
bring  us  to  the  starting-point  of  production  as  it 
exists  to-day.  The  efficiency  of  productive  effort 
has  made  all  its  most  astounding  advances  since 
the  precise  time  at  which  the  Wealth  of  Nations 
was  written;  and  these  advances  we  shall  find 
that  it  is  quite  impossible  to  explain  merely  by  a 

27 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

further  division  of  average  and  equal  labor.  Such 
a  further  division  has  no  doubt  been  an  element 
of  the  process;  but  it  is  an  explanation  which  it- 
self requires  explaining.  Even  in  Adam  Smith's 
time  two  other  factors  were  at  work,  which  have 
ever  since  been  growing  in  magnitude  and  im- 
portance; and  the  secret  of  modern  production 
lies,  we  shall  find,  in  these.  I  call  them  two,  but 
fundamentally  there  is  only  one;  for  that  which 
is  most  obvious,  and  of  which  I  shall  speak  first, 
is  explainable  only  as  the  direct  result  of  the 
second.  This,  the  most  obvious  factor,  is  the 
modern  development  of  machinery.  The  other  is 
the  growing  application  of  exceptional  mental 
powers,  not  to  the  manual  labor  of  the  men  by 
whom  these  powers  are  possessed,  but  to  the 
process  of  distributing  and  co-ordinating  the  di- 
vided labors  of  others. 

Now,  as  to  machinery,  Marx  and  his  followers, 
as  we  have  seen,  maintain  that  it  represents  noth- 
ing but  the  average  labor  of  the  past:  and  so  long 
as  it  exists  only  in  its  smaller  and  simpler  forms, 
the  devising  and  constructing  of  which  are  not 
referable  to  any  faculties  which  we  are  able  to 
distinguish  from  those  of  the  average  laborer,  we 
have  further  seen  that  the  theory  of  Marx  holds 
good.  Labor  produces  alike  both  the  finished 
goods  and  its  implements.  But  in  proportion  as 
machines  or  other  contrivances,  such  as  vessels, 
grow  in  size  or  complexity,  and  embody,  as  they 
do  in  their  more  modern  developments,  ingenuity 

?8 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

of  the  highest  and  knowledge  of  the  most  abstruse 
kinds,  the  situation  changes;  and  we  are  able  to 
identify  certain  faculties  as  essential  to  the  ulti- 
mate result,  which  affect  the  work  of  the  laborers, 
but  which  do  not  emanate  from  themselves.  Any 
three  men  of  average  strength  and  intelligence 
might  make  a  potter's  w^heel  together,  or  build  a 
small  boat  together,  as  they  frequently  do  now, 
their  several  tasks  being  interchangeable,  or  as- 
signed to  each  of  them  by  easy  mutual  agreement. 
The  business  of  directing  labor  has  not  separated 
itself  from  the  actual  business  of  laboring.  Each 
man  knows  the  object  of  what  he  does,  and  can 
co-ordinate  that  object  with  the  object  of  what  is 
done  by  his  fellows.  But  when  the  ultimate  re- 
sult is  something  so  vast  and  complicated  that  a 
thousand  men  instead  of  three  have  to  co-operate 
in  the  production  of  it,  when  a  million  pieces  of 
metal,  some  large  and  some  minute,  have  to  be 
cast,  filed,  turned,  rolled,  or  bent,  so  that  finally 
they  may  all  coalesce  into  a  single  mechanical 
organism,  no  one  laborer  sees  further  than  the  task 
which  he  performs  himself.  He  cannot  adjust  his 
work  to  that  of  another  man,  who  is  probably 
working  a  quarter  of  a  mile  away  from  him;  and 
he  has  in  most  cases  no  idea  whatever  of  how  the 
tw^o  pieces  of  work  are  related  to  each  other.  Each 
laborer  has  simply  to  perform  his  work  in  accord- 
ance with  directions  which  emanate  from  some 
mind  other  than  his  own;  and  the  w^hole  practical 
value  of  w^hat  the  laborers  do  depends  on  the  qual- 

29 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

ity  of  the  directions  which  are  thus  given  to 
each. 

In  other  words,  in  proportion  as  the  industrial 
process  is  enhanced  in  productivity  by  the  concen- 
tration on  it  of  the  higher  faculties  of  mankind, 
there  is  an  increasing  fission  of  this  process  as  a 
whole  into  two  kinds  of  activity  represented  by 
two  different  groups.  We  have  no  more  merely — 
although  we  have  this  still — an  increasing  division 
of  labor ;  but  we  have  the  laborers  of  all  kinds  and 
grades  separating  themselves  into  one  group  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  men  who  direct  their  labor, 
as  a  separate  group,  on  the  other  hand. 

The  function  of  the  directive  faculties,  as  ap- 
plied thus  to  the  operations  of  modern  labor,  can 
perhaps  be  most  easily  illustrated  by  the  case  of  a 
printed  book.  Let  us  take  two  editions  of  ten 
thousand  copies  each,  similarly  printed,  and  priced 
at  a  dollar  a  copy;  the  one  being  an  edition  of  a 
book  so  dull  that  but  twenty  copies  can  be  sold  of 
it,  the  other  of  a  book  so  interesting  that  the  public 
buys  the  whole  ten  thousand.  Now  apart  from  its 
negligible  value  as  so  many  tons  of  waste  paper, 
each  pile  of  books  represents  economic  wealth  or 
property  only  in  proportion  to  the  quantity  of  it 
for  which  the  vendor  can  find  purchasers.  Hence 
we  have  in  the  present  case  two  piles  of  printed 
paper  which,  regarded  as  paper  patterned  with 
printer's  ink,  are  similar,  but  one  of  which  is  wealth 
to  the  extent  of  ten  thousand  dollars,  while  the 
other  is  wealth  to  the  extent  of  no  more  than 

30 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

twenty.  And  to  what  is  the  difference  between 
these  two  values  due  ?  It  obviously  cannot  be  due 
to  the  manual  labor  of  the  compositors;  for  this, 
both  in  kind  and  quantity,  is  in  each  case  the  same. 
It  is  due  to  the  special  directions  under  which  the 
labor  of  the  compositors  is  performed.  But  these 
directions  do  not  emanate  from  the  men  by  whose 
hands  the  types  are  arranged  in  a  given  order. 
They  come  from  the  author,  who  conveys  them  to 
the  compositors  through  his  manuscript;  which 
manuscript,  considered  under  its  economic  aspect, 
is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  series  of  minute 
orders,  which  modify  from  second  to  second  every 
movement  of  the  compositors'  hands,  and  deter- 
mine the  subsequent  results  of  every  impress  of  the 
type  on  paper;  one  mind  thus,  by  directing  the 
labor  of  others,  imparting  the  quality  of  much 
wealth  or  of  little  to  every  one  of  the  ten  thousand 
copies  of  which  the  edition  is  composed. 

Similarly  when  a  man  invents,  and  brings  into 
practical  use,  some  new  and  successful  apparatus 
such,  let  us  say,  as  the  telephone,  the  same  situa- 
tion repeats  itself.  The  new  apparatus  is  an  addi- 
tion to  the  world's  wealth,  not  because  so  many 
scraps  of  wood,  brass,  nickel,  vulcanite,  and  such 
and  such  lengths  of  wire,  are  shaped,  stretched,  and 
connected  with  sufificient  manual  dexterity — for  the 
highest  dexterity  is  very  often  employed  in  the 
making  of  contrivances  which  turn  out  to  be  futile 
— but  because  each  of  its  parts  is  fashioned  in 
obedience  to  certain  designs  with  which  this  dex- 

31 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

terity,  as  such,  has  nothing  at  all  to  do.  The  ap- 
paratus is  successful,  and  an  addition  to  the  world's 
wealth,  because  the  designs  of  the  inventor,  just 
like  the  author's  manuscript,  constitute  a  multi- 
tude of  injunctions  proceeding  from  a  master-mind, 
which  is  not  the  mind  of  those  by  whose  hands 
they  are  carried  into  execution. 

And  with  the  direction  of  labor  generally,  whether 
in  the  production  of  machinery  or  the  use  of  the 
machinery  in  the  production  of  goods  for  the  pub- 
lic, the  case  is  again  the  same.  We  have  manual 
labor  of  a  given  kind  and  quality,  which  assists  in 
producing  what  is  wanted  or  not  wanted — what  is 
so  much  wealth  or  simply  so  much  refuse,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  manner  in  which  all  this  labor 
is  directed  by  faculties  specifically  different  from 
those  exercised  by  the  manual  laborers  them- 
selves. 

And  now  we  are  in  a  position  to  sum  up  in  a 
brief  and  decisive  formula  what  the  difference  be- 
tween the  sets  of  faculties  thus  contrasted  is.  It 
is  not  essentially  a  difference  between  lower  and 
higher,  for  some  forms  of  labor,  such  as  that  of  the 
great  painter,  may  be  morally  higher  than  some 
forms  of  direction.  The  difference  is  one  not  of  de- 
gree, but  of  kind,  and  includes  two  different  psycho- 
physical processes.  Labor,  from  the  most  ordinary 
up  to  the  rarest  kind,  is  the  mind  or  the  brain  of 
one  man  affecting  that  man's  oivn  hands,  and  the 
single  task  at  which  his  hands  happen  to  be  engaged. 
The  directive  faculties  are  the  mind  or  the  brain  of 

32 


a   CRITICAL   EXAMLNATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

one  man  simultaneously  affecting  the  hands  of  any 
number  of  other  men,  and  through  their  hands  the 
simultaneous  tasks  of  all  of  them,  no  matter  how 
various  these  tasks  may  be. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE    ERRORS    OF     MARX,     CONTINUED.       CAPITAL    AS 
THE    IMPLExMENT    OF    ABILITY 

Two  kinds  of  human  effort  being  thus  involved  in  modem 
production,  it  is  necessary  for  all  purposes  of  intelligible  dis- 
cussion to  distinguish  them  by  different  names. 

The  word  "labor"  being  appropriated  by  common  custom 
to  the  manual  task-work  of  the  majority,  some  other  technical 
word  must  be  found  to  designate  the  directive  faculties  as  ap- 
plied to  productive  industry.  The  word  here  chosen,  in  default 
of  a  better,  is  "ability." 

Ability,  then,  being  the  faculty  which  directs  labor,  by 
what  means  does  it  give  effect  to  its  directions  ? 

It  gives  effect  to  its  directions  by  means  of  its  control  of 
capital,  in  the  form  of  wage-capital. 

Ability,  using  wage-capital  as  its  implement  of  direction, 
gives  rise  to  fixed  capital,  in  the  form  of  the  elaborate  imple- 
ments of  modem  production,  which  are  the  material  embodi- 
ments of  the  knowledge,  ingenuity,  and  energy  of  the  highest 
minds. 

The  human  activities  and  faculties,  then,  which 
are  involved  in  the  production  of  modern  wealth, 
are  not,  as  Marx  says — and  as  the  orthodox  econo- 
mists said,  whom  he  rightly  calls  his  masters,  and 
as  their  followers  still  say — of  one  kind — namely, 
those  embodied  in  the  individual  task- work  of  the 
individual,  to  which  Marx,  Ricardo,  and  Mill  alike 

34 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

give  the  name  of  "labor";  they  are  of  two  kinds. 
And  this,  indeed,  the  earlier  economists  recognized, 
as  we  may  see  by  Mill's  casual  admission  that  the 
progress  of  industrial  effort  depends  before  all 
things  on  thought  and  the  advance  of  knowledge. 
But  they  recognized  the  fact  in  a  general  way  only. 
How  thought  and  knowledge  affected  the  industrial 
process  they  made  no  attempt  to  explain,  otherwise 
than  by  comprehending  them  on  occasion  under 
the  common  name  of  labor,  which  they  assigned 
throughout  most  of  their  arguments  to  manual 
task- work  only. 

Now  it  is  doubtless  true  that,  as  a  mere  matter 
of  verbal  propriety,  this  general  sense  may  be  given 
to  the  word  "labor,"  if  we  please;  but  if  in  discus- 
sing the  efforts  which  produce  wealth  we  admit 
that  these  efforts  are  not  of  one  kind  but  two, 
and  if  the  word  "labor"  is,  in  nine  cases  out  of 
ten,  employed  with  the  definite  intention  of  desig- 
nating only  one  of  them,  it  is  impossible  to  reason 
about  the  industrial  process  intelligibly,  so  long 
as  we  apply  also  the  same  name  to  the  other.  We 
might  as  well  use  the  word  "man" — as  with  refer- 
ence to  some  problems  we  are  perfectly  right  in 
doing — to  designate  both  men  and  women,  and 
then  attempt  to  discuss  the  relations  between  the 
two  sexes. 

For  the  directive  faculties,  so  essentially  distinct 
from  those  to  which  universal  custom  has  allocated 
the  name  of  labor,  it  is  difficult  to  find  a  name  equal- 
ly convenient  and  satisfying.     In  default  of  abet- 

35 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

ter,  I  have,  on  former  occasions,  applied  to  it  the 
name  of  Ability;  and  this  will  serve  our  purpose 
here — especially  as  it  is  a  name  which  has  been,  of 
recent  years,  applied  b}^  many  of  the  more  thought- 
ful socialists  themselves  to  certain  activities  of  a 
mental  and  moral  kind,  which  their  conception  of 
labor  cannot  be  made  to  include,  but  which  they 
are  beginning  to  recognize  as  playing  some  part  in 
production.  We  must  remember,  however,  that 
we  are  using  it  in  a  strictly  technical  sense,  which 
will  in  some  respects  be  narrower  than  the  ordinary, 
and  in  some  more  comprehensive.  It  will  exclude 
all  kinds  of  cleverness  unapplied  to  economic  pro- 
duction; and  will  include  many  powers,  in  so  far 
as  such  production  is  affected  by  them,  to  the  ex- 
pression of  whose  scope  and  character  it  may  some- 
times appear  inadequate.* 

'  When  I  insisted  on  this  distinction  bet-A'een  "labor"  and 
"ability"  in  America,  innumerable  critics  met  me  with  two 
objections.  One  of  these,  as  stated  by  a  writer  who  confessed 
himself  otherwise  in  entire  agreement  with  me,  was  this:  "It 
is  impossible,  as  Mr.  Mallock  attempts  to  do,  to  draw  a  hard 
and  fast  line  between  mental  effort  and  muscular."  No  such 
attempt  is  inade.  As  I  pointed  out  in  one  of  my  speeches, 
many  kinds  of  "labor"  {e.  g.,  that  of  the  great  painter)  exhibit 
higher  mentality  than  do  many  kinds  of  ability.  Further,  I 
pointed  out  that,  in  a  technical  sense,  the  same  effort  may 
be  either  an  effort  of  labor  or  ability,  according  to  its  ap- 
plication. Thus  if  a  singer  sings  to  an  audience,  his  effort 
is  technically  "labor,"  because  it  ends  with  the  single  task; 
but  if  he  sings  so  as  to  produce  a  gramophone  record,  his 
effort  is  an  act  of  "ability,"  for  he  influences  the  products  of 
other  men,  by  whom  the  records  are  multiplied.  The  second 
objection  was  expressed  by  one  of  my  critics  thus:  "I  say  that 

36 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

And  now  when  we  have  come  thus  far,  a  quite 
new  question  arises.  We  have  seen  how  abiHty  is, 
by  its  direction  of  labor,  the  chief  agency  in  that 
process  which  produces  wealth  to-day,  and  how 
it  makes  the  amount  produced,  relatively  to  the 
number  of  the  producers,  so  incomparably  greater 
than  it  ever  was  under  any  previous  system.  We 
have  now  to  consider  the  means  by  which  this 
faculty  of  direction  is  exercised. 

In  order  to  understand  this,  we  must  turn  our 
attention  again  to  capital,  as  something  distinct 
and  detached  from  the  human  efforts  that  have 
produced  it ;  and  we  shall  find  that  the  conception 
of  it  which  dominated  the  thought  of  Marx,  and 
that  which  dominates  the  thought  of  the  orthodox 
school  of  economists,  either  excludes  altogether,  or 
fails  to  reveal  the  nature  of,  that  particular  force 
and  function  of  it  which,  in  the  modern  world,  are 
fundamental. 

Capital  is  divided  traditionally  into  two  kinds, 
technically  called  "fixed"  and  "circulating."  By 
fixed  capital,  which  is  what  Marx  had  mainly  in 


all  productive  effort  is  labor.  ...  I  dare  you  to  tell  any  one  of 
these  genii  that  they  are  not  laborers."  Another  critic  said: 
"Just  as  'land'  in  economics  means  all  the  forces  of  nature,  so 
does  'labor'  mean  all  the  forces  of  man.  Why,  then,  speak  of 
ability?"  These  criticisms  are  purely  verbal.  If  we  like  to 
take  "labor"  as  a  collective  name  for  all  forms  of  human  effort, 
we  can  of  course  do  so;  but  in  that  case  we  must  find  other 
differential  names  for  the  different  forces  of  effort  individually. 
To  give  them  all  the  same  name  is  not  to  explain  them.  It  is 
to  tie  them  all  up  in  a  parcel. 

4  37 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

view,  is  meant  machinery,  and  the  works  and 
structures  connected  with  it;  and  it  is  called 
"fixed"  on  account  of  its  comparative  permanence. 
By  circulating  capital  is  meant,  as  Adam  Smith 
puts  it,  any  stock  of  those  consumable  commodities 
which,  produced  by  the  aid  of  machinery,  the  mer- 
chant or  the  store-keeper  buys  in  order  to  sell  them 
at  a  profit;  and  it  is  called  "circulating"  because 
the  commodities  which  are  sold  to-day  are  replaced 
by  new  ones  of  an  equivalent  kind  to-morrow. 

Now,  as  to  fixed  capital,  or  the  endlessly  elabo- 
rated machinery  of  the  modern  world,  we  have  seen 
already  that  this  is,  in  its  distinctive  features,  not, 
as  Marx  declared  it  to  be,  a  crystallization  of  labor, 
but  a  crystallization  of  the  ability  by  which  labor 
has  been  directed;  but  this  revised  explanation 
tells  us  nothing  of  the  means  by  which  the  direc- 
tion is  accomplished.  Still  less  is  any  light  thrown 
on  the  question  by  the  nature  of  circulating  cap- 
ital, as  Adam  Smith  understands  it. 

The  kind  of  capital  which  alone  concerns  us  here 
is  a  kind  which  resembles  circulating  capital  in 
respect  of  its  material  form,  and  is  often  indeed  in 
this  respect  identical  with  it;  but  it  differs  from 
circulating  capital  in  respect  of  the  use  made  of  it. 
Such  capital  we  may  call  wage-capital.  Wage- 
capital,  although  in  practice  it  disguises  itself  under 
the  form  of  money,  is  essentially  a  stock  of  goods 
which  are  the  daily  necessaries  of  life,  but  which, 
instead  of  being  sold  to  the  public,  like  the  goods 
of  the  store-keeper,  at  a  profit,  are  distributed  by 

38 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

their  possessor  among  a  special  group  of  laborers 
on  conditions.  The  first  of  these  is  naturally  that 
the  laborers  do  work  of  some  sort.  The  second 
condition,  and  the  one  that  concerns  us  here,  is 
that,  besides  doing  work  of  some  sort,  each  shall 
do  the  work  which  the  distributer  of  the  goods 
prescribes  to  him. 

Here  we  have  before  us  the  means  by  which, 
in  the  modern  world,  the  ability  of  the  few  directs 
the  labor  of  the  many;  and,  in  proportion  to  the 
quality  and  intensity  of  the  directive  powers  that 
are  exercised,  adds  to  the  value  of  the  results  which 
this  labor  would  have  produced  otherwise.  Thus 
in  wage-capital  we  have  the  capital  of  the  modern 
world  in  what  dynamically  is  its  primary  and 
parent  form  —  a  kind  of  capital  which  improved 
machinery  is  always  tending  to  augment,  but  of 
whose  use  the  machinery  itself,  its  renewal,  and 
its  continued  improvement  are  the  consequences. 

That  such  is  the  case  might  be  illustrated  by 
any  number  of  familiar  examples.  A  man  invents 
a  new  machine  having  some  useful  purpose — let  us 
say  the  production  of  some  new  kind  of  manure, 
which  will  double  the  fertility  of  every  field  in  the 
country.  In  order  to  put  this  machine  on  the 
market,  and  make  it  a  fact  instead  of  a  mere  con- 
ception, the  first  thing  necessary  is,  as  every  human 
being  knows,  that  the  inventor  shall  possess,  or 
acquire,  the  control  of  capital.  And  what  is  the 
next  step?  When  the  capital  is  provided,  how 
will  it  first  be  used?     It  will  be  used  in  the  form 

39 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  wages,  or  articles  of  daily  consumption,  which 
will  be  distributed  among  a  certain  number  of 
mechanics  and  other  laborers,  on  condition  that 
they  set  about  fashioning,  in  certain  prescribed 
groups,  so  much  metal  into  so  many  prescribed 
shapes — some  of  them  shaping  it  into  wheels,  some 
into  knives  and  rollers,  some  into  sieves,  rods, 
cranks,  cams,  and  eccentrics,  in  accordance  with 
patterns  which  have  never  been  followed  previous- 
ly; and  of  all  these  individual  operations  the  new 
machine,  as  a  practical  implement,  is  the  result. 
The  machine  is  new,  and  it  is  an  addition  to  the 
wealth-producing  powers  of  the  world,  not  because 
it  embodies  so  much  labor,  but  because  it  embodies 
so  much  labor  directed  in  a  new  way ;  and  it  is  only 
by  means  of  the  conditions  which  the  possession  of 
wage-capital  enables  the  inventor  or  his  partners 
to  impose  upon  every  one  of  the  laborers  that 
the  machine,  as  a  practical  implement,  comes  into 
existence  at  all. 

Hence  we  see  that  Marx  was  at  once  right  and 
wrong  when  he  said  that  modern  capitalism  is,  in 
its  essence,  monopoly.  It  is  monopoly;  but  it  is 
not  primarily,  as  Marx  thought,  a  passive  monop- 
oly of  improved  instruments  of  production.  It  is 
primarily  a  monopoly  of  products  which  are  essen- 
tial to  the  life  of  the  laborer;  and  it  is  a  monopoly 
of  these,  not  in  the  invidious  sense  that  the  monop- 
olists retain  them  for  their  own  personal  consump- 
tion, as  they  do  in  the  case  of  rare  wines  and  fabrics, 
which  can,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  enjoyed 

40 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

by  a  few  only.  It  is  a  monopoly  of  them  in  the 
sense  that  the  monopolists  have  such  a  control  over 
their  distribution  as  enables  them  to  control  the 
purely  technical  actions  of  those  persons  who  ulti- 
mately own  and  consume  the  whole  of  them/ 

Modern  capital,  then,  I  repeat,  is  primarily  wage- 
capital,  such  capital  as  modern  machinery  being 
the  direct  result  of  its  application;  and  wage- 
capital  is  productive,  not  in  virtue  of  any  quality 
inherent  in  itself,  but  merely  because  as  a  fact, 
under  the  modern  system,  it  constitutes  the  reins 
by  which  the  exceptional  ability  of  a  few  guides 
the  labor,  skilled  or  unskilled,  of  the   many.     It 

'  If  this  fact  requires  any  further  exemplification,  we  can 
find  one  on  large  scale  in  the  pages  of  Marx  himself.  Accord- 
ing to  him  the  first  appreciable  capitalistic  movement — the 
first  leaping  of  the  modern  system  in  the  womb — took  place  in 
the  English  cloth  trade  about  four  hundred  years  ago.  Now 
if  capitalism  were  merely,  as  according  to  Marx  it  is,  a  passive 
monopoly  by  some  men  of  implements  which  have  been  pro- 
duced by  others,  the  pioneers  of  capitalism  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VI IL  would  have  got  into  their  possession  all  the 
hand-looms  then  in  use;  they  would  have  taken  their  toll  in 
kind  from  all  whom  they  allowed  to  use  them;  and  there  the 
matter  would  have  ended.  The  looms  of  to-day  would  be  the 
looms  of  four  hundred  years  ago.  The  passive  ownership  of 
machines  does  nothing  to  improve  their  construction.  If  a 
gang  of  ignorant  thieves  could  steal  all  the  watches  in  America, 
and  then  let  them  out  to  the  public  at  so  much  a  month  or 
year,  this  would  convert  the  three-dollar  watches  into  chronom- 
eters. And  how  Httle  mere  labor,  or  the  experience  gained 
by  labor,  tends  to  improve  the  implements  which  the  laborer 
uses  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  looms  which  wove  Anne 
Boleyn's  petticoats  were  practically  the  same  as  the  looms 
which  wove  those  of  Semiramis. 

41 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

is  the  means  by  which  the  commonest  laborer, 
who  hardly  knows  the  rule  of  three,  is  made  to 
work  as  though  he  were  master  of  the  abstrusest 
branches  of  mathematics;  by  which  the  artisan 
who  only  has  a  smattering — if  he  has  as  much  as 
that — of  mechanics,  metallurgy,  chemistry,  is  made 
to  work  as  though  all  the  sciences  had  been  assimi- 
lated by  his  single  brain. 

Let  any  one  consider,  for  example,  one  of  the 
great  steel  bridges  which  now  throw  their  single 
spans  over  waters  such  as  the  Firth  of  Forth. 
These  structures  are  crystallized  labor,  doubtless, 
but  they  are,  in  their  distinctive  features,  not 
crystallized  labor  as  such.  They  are  crystallized 
mechanics,  crystallized  chemistry,  crystallized  math- 
ematics—  in  short,  crystallized  intellect,  knowl- 
edge, imagination,  and  executive  capacity,  of  kinds 
which  hardly  exist  in  a  dozen  minds  out  of  a  mill- 
ion ;  and  labor  conduces  to  the  production  of  such 
astonishing  structures  only  because  it  submits  itself 
to  the  guidance  of  these  intellectual  leaders.  And 
the  same  is  the  case  with  modern  production  gen- 
erally. Though  labor  is  essential  to  the  produc- 
tion of  wealth  even  in  the  smallest  quantities,  the 
distinguishing  productivity  of  industry-  in  the  mod- 
ern world  depends  not  on  the  labor,  but  on  the 
ability  with  which  the  labor  is  directed;  and  in 
the  modern  world  the  primary  function  of  capital 
is  that  of  providing  ability  with  its  necessary  in- 
strument of  direction. 

No  unprejudiced  person,  who  is  capable  of  co- 
42 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMLNATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

herent  thought,  can,  when  the  matter  is  thus 
plainly  stated,  possibly  deny  this.  That  it  can- 
not be  denied  will  be  shown  in  the  two  following 
chapters  by  recent  admissions  on  the  part  of  so- 
cialists themselves,  the  more  thoughtful  of  w^hom 
have  now  virtually  abandoned  the  earlier  theoreti- 
cal framework  of  socialism  altogether,  and  are  try- 
ing to  substitute  a  new  one,  with  which  we  will 
deal  later,  and  which  will  indeed  prove  the  main 
subject  of  our  inquiry. 


CHAPTER  V 

REPUDIATION     OF     MARX     BY     MODERN     SOCIALISTS. 
THEIR   RECOGNITION    OF   DIRECTIVE   ABILITY 

The  more  educated  socialists  of  to-day,  when  the  matter  is 
put  plainly  before  them,  admit  that  the  argument  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapters  is  correct,  and  repudiate  the  doctrine  of  Marx 
that  "labor"  is  the  sole  producer. 

Examples  of  this  admission  on  the  part  of  American  so- 
cialists. 

The  socialism  of  Marx,  however,  still  remains  the  socialism 
of  the  more  ignorant  classes,  and  also  of  the  popular  agitator. 

It  is,  moreover,  still  used  as  an  instrument  of  agitation  by 
many  who  personally  repudiate  it.     The  case  of  Mr.  Hillquit. 

The  doctrine  of  Marx,  therefore,  still  requires  exposure. 

Further,  it  is  necessary  to  understand  this  earlier  form  of 
socialistic  theory  in  order  to  understand  the  later. 

In  saying  that,  up  to  the  point  which  our  argu- 
ment has  thus  far  reached,  the  more  thoughtful 
among  the  socialists  to-day  concede  and  even 
assert  its  truth,  I  have  evidence  in  view  of  a  very 
apposite  kind.  When  I  delivered,  as  I  did  recent- 
ly, a  series  of  addresses  on  socialism  to  various 
meetings  in  America,  I  approached  the  subject  in 
the  manner  in  which  I  have  approached  it  here. 
I  began  with  the  process  of  production  pure  and 
simple,  and  I  showed  how  crude  and  childish,  as 

44 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

applied  to  production  in  modern  times,  was  the 
analysis  of  Marx  and  all  the  earlier  socialists.  I 
showed,  as  I  have  shown  here,  that,  the  amount  of 
labor  being  given,  the  quantity  and  quality  of 
wealth  that  will  result  from  its  exercise  depend  on 
the  ability  with  which  by  means  of  wage-capital 
this  labor  is  directed. 

The  two  addresses  in  which  these  points  were 
elaborated  had  been  no  sooner  delivered  than, 
from  all  parts  of  the  country,  through  newspapers 
and  private  letters,  and  sometimes  by  word  of 
mouth,  socialists  of  various  types  addressed  them- 
selves to  the  business  of  replying  to  me.  These 
replies,  whatever  may  have  been  their  differences 
otherwise,  all  took  the  form  of  a  declaration  that 
I  was  only  wasting  my  time  in  exposing  the  doc- 
trine that  labor  is  the  sole  producer  of  wealth,  and 
in  laying  such  stress  on  the  part  played  by  directive 
ability;  for  no  serious  socialist  of  the  present  day 
any  longer  believed  the  one,  or  failed  to  recognize 
the  other.  Thus  one  of  my  critics  told  me  that 
what  I  ought  to  do  was  "to  discuss  the  principles 
of  socialism  as  understood  and  accepted  by  the 
intelligent  disciples,  and  not  the  worn-out  and  dis- 
credited theories  of  Marx."  Another  was  good 
enough  to  tell  me  that  I  had  "cleverly  accom- 
plished the  task  of  exposing  the  errors  of  Marx, 
both  of  premise  and  of  logic";  but  the  leaders  of 
socialistic  thought  "in  its  later  developments" 
had,  he  proceeded  to  say,  long  ago  outgrown  these. 
A  third  wrote  me  a  letter  bristling  with  all  kinds  of 

45 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

challenges,  and  asked  me  if  I  thought,  for  example, 
that  socialists  were  such  fools  as  not  to  recognize 
that  the  talents  of  an  inventor  like  Mr.  Edison 
increased  the  productivity  of  labor  by  the  new 
direction  which  they  gave  to  it.  I  might  multiply 
similar  quotations,  but  one  more  will  be  enough 
here.  It  is  taken  from  a  long  article  directed 
against  myself  by  Mr,  Hill  quit — a  writer  to  whom 
my  special  attention  was  called  as  by  far  the  most 
accomplished  exponent,  among  the  militant  social- 
ists of  America,  of  socialism  in  its  most  logical  and 
most  highly  developed  form.  "It  requires,"  said 
Mr.  Hillquit,  "no  special  genius  to  demonstrate 
that  all  labor  is  not  alike,  nor  equally  productive. 
It  is  still  more  obvious  that  common  manual  labor 
is  impotent  to  produce  the  wealth  of  modern  na- 
tions— that  organization,  direction,  and  control  are 
essential  to  productive  work  in  the  field  of  modern 
production,  and  are  just  as  much  a  factor  in  it  as 
mere  physical  effort." 

But  we  need  not  confine  ourselves  to  my  own 
late  critics  in  America.  The  general  history  of 
socialism  as  a  reasoned  theory  is  practically  the 
same  in  one  country  as  in  another.  The  intellect- 
ual socialists  in  England,  among  whom  Mr.  Ber- 
nard Shaw  and  Mr.  Sidney  Webb  are  prominent, 
express  themselves  in  even  plainer  terms  with  re- 
gard to  the  part  which  directive  ability,  as  opposed 
to  labor,  plays  in  the  modern  world.  "Ability," 
says  Mr.  Shaw,  employing  the  very  word,  is  often 
the  factor  which  determines  w^hether  a  given  in- 

46 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

dustry  shall  make  a  loss  of  five  per  cent,  or  else  a 
profit  of  twenty;  and  Mr.  Webb,  as  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  see  presently,  carries  the  argument 
further,  and  states  it  in  greater  detail. 

Why,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  should  a  critic  of 
contemporary  socialism  think  it  worth  while  to 
expose  with  so  much  minuteness  a  fallacy  which 
intellectual  socialists  now  all  agree  in  repudiating, 
and  to  insist  with  such  emphasis  on  facts  which 
they  profess  to  recognize  as  self-evident?  To  this 
question  there  are  two  answ^ers.  One  of  these  I 
indicated  at  the  close  of  our  opening  chapter;  and 
then  at  the  cost  of  what  in  logic  is  a  m.ere  digres- 
sion, it  will  be  desirable,  for  practical  purposes,  to 
state  it  with  greater  fulness. 

Admissions  and  assertions,  such  as  those  which 
I  have  just  now  quoted,  do  no  doubt  represent  a 
definite  intellectual  advance  which  has  taken  place 
in  the  theory  of  socialism,  among  those  who  are 
its  most  thoughtful  exponents,  and  in  a  certain 
sense  its  leaders.  They  represent  what  these  lead- 
ers think  and  say  among  themselves,  and  what 
they  put  forward  when  disputing  with  opponents 
who  are  competent  to  criticise  them.  But  what 
they  do  not  represent  is  socialism  as  still  preached 
to  the  populace,  or  the  doctrine  which  is  still  vital 
for  socialists  as  a  popular  party.  This  is  still,  just 
as  it  was  originally,  the  socialism  of  Marx  in  an 
absolutely  unamended  form.  It  is  the  doctrine 
that  the  manual  efforts  of  the  vast  multitude  of 
laborers,  directed  only  by  the  minds  of  the  indi- 

47 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

vidual  laborers  themselves,  produce  all  the  wealth 
of  the  world ;  that  the  holding  of  any  of  this  wealth 
by  any  other  class  whatever  stands  for  nothing  but 
a  system  of  legalized  plunder ;  and  that  the  laborers 
need  only  inaugurate  a  legislation  of  a  new  kind  in 
order  to  secure  and  enjoy  what  always  was  by  rights 
their  own.  Let  me  illustrate  this  assertion  by  two 
examples,  one  supplied  to  us  by  England,  the  other 
by  America. 

In  England  the  body  which  calls  itself  the  Social 
Democratic  Federation,  and  represents  at  this  mo- 
ment socialism  of  the  more  popular  kind,  began  its 
campaign  with  a  manifesto  which  was  headed  with 
the  familiar  words,  "All  wealth  is  due  to  labor; 
therefore  to  the  laborer  all  wealth  is  due."  This 
text  or  motto  was  followed  by  certain  figures,  with 
regard  to  the  total  income  of  Great  Britain,  and  the 
manner  in  which  it  is  at  present  distributed.  Labor 
was  represented  as  getting  less  than  one-fourth  of 
the  whole,  and  the  laborers  were  informed  that  if 
they  would  but  "educate  themselves,  agitate,  and 
organize,"  the  remaining  three-fourths  would  auto- 
matically pass  into  their  possession.  This  docu- 
ment, it  is  true,  was  issued  some  twenty  years  ago; 
but  that  the  form  which  socialism  takes,  when  ad- 
dressed to  the  masses  of  the  population,  has  not 
appreciably  altered  from  that  day  to  this,  will  be 
made  sufficiently  clear  by  the  following  pertinent 
fact.  Shortly  after  my  arrival  in  America,  in  the 
winter  of  1907,  the  most  active  disseminator  of 
socialistic  literature  in  New  York  sent  me,  by  way 

48 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  a  challenge,  a  new  and  very  spruce  volume, 
which  contained  the  most  important  of  his  previous 
leaflets  and  articles,  collected  and  republished,  and 
claiming  renewed  attention.  The  first  of  these — 
and  it  was  signalized  by  an  accompanying  adver- 
tisement as  fundamental — bore  the  impressive  title 
of  "Why  the  Workingman  Should  be  a  Socialist"; 
and  the  answer  to  this  question  is  given  in  the 
writer's  opening  words.  "You  know,"  he  says, 
addressing  any  laborer  and  the  street- worker,  "or 
you  ought  to  know,  that  you  alone  produce  all  the 
good  things  of  life ;  and  you  know,  or  you  ought  to 
know,  that  by  so  simple  a  process  as  that  of  cast- 
ing your  ballot  intelligently  you  will  be  able" — to 
do  what  ?  The  writer  explains  himself  in  language 
which,  except  for  a  difference  in  his  statistics,  is 
almost  a  verbal  repetition  of  that  of  his  English 
predecessors.  He  specifies  two  sums,  one  repre- 
senting the  income  which  each  working-man  in 
America  would  receive  were  the  entire  wealth  of 
the  country  divided  equally  among  the  manual 
laborers ;  the  other  representing  the  income  which, 
on  an  average,  he  actually  receives  as  wages;  and 
the  writer  tells  every  working-man  that,  by  "mere- 
ly casting  his  ballot  intelligently,"  he  can  secure  for 
himself  the  whole  difference  between  the  larger  sum 
and  the  less.^ 

»  The  writer  of  this  leaflet,  Mr.  Wilshire,  has  subsequently 
declared  in  his  published  criticisms  of  myself,  that  I  impute 
to  socialists  what  no  socialists  really  say,  and  contends  that, 
when  he  thus  speaks  of  "working-men"  and  "laborers,"  he 

49 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

But  the  fact  that  the  Marxian  doctrine  of  the  all- 
productivity  of  labor,  and  the  consequent  economic 
nullity  of  all  other  forms  of  effort,  still  supplies  the 
main  ideas  by  which  popular  socialism  is  vitalized, 
is  shown  perhaps  even  more  distinctly  by  the  popu- 
lar hopes  and  demands  which  result  from  this  doc- 
trine indirectly  than  it  is  by  the  direct  reassertion 
of  the  formal  doctrine  itself.  One  of  the  members 
of  the  Parliamentary  Labor  party  in  England  cele- 
brated his  success  at  the  polls  by  a  letter  to  the 
(London)  Times,  proclaiming  that  socialism  was  a 
moral  quite  as  much  as  an  economic  movement, 
and  that  an  object  which  to  socialists  was  dearer 
even  than  the  seizure  of  the  riches  of  the  rich,  was 
the  achievement  of  "economic  freedom,"  or,  in 
other  words,  the  "emancipation  of  labor,"  or,  in 
other  words  again,  the  abolition  of  the  system 
which  he  described  at  "wagedom."  I  merely  men- 
includes  all  men  who  contribute  anything  to  the  productive 
forces  of  a  country — inventors  like  Mr.  Edison,  and  millionaire 
captains  of  industry,  in  so  far  as  they  are  active  agents,  and 
not  mere  recipients  of  interest.  But  that  such  is  not  the  mean- 
ing which  he  conveys,  or  desires  to  convey,  to  them  to  whom 
his  leaflet  addresses  itself,  is  plainly  shown  by  his  statistics,  if 
by  nothing  else;  for  the  share  of  the  natural  increase  which 
goes,  as  he  asserts,  to  "labor"  is  avowedly  the  amount  which, 
according  to  his  estimate,  is  paid  to-day  in  America,  as  weekly 
wages  to  the  mass  of  manual  laborers.  To  say  that  labor  in  its 
more  extended  sense  is  the  producer  of  all  wealth  is  a  mere 
meaningless  platitude.  It  is  to  say  that  there  would  be  no 
wealth  withovit  effort  of  some  kind.  Does  Mr.  Wilshire  seri- 
ously wish  us  to  believe  that  he  is  telling  Mr.  Edison  that  "if 
he  will  only  cast  his  ballot  intelligently  "  he  will  be  able  to 
treble  his  income  at  the  expense  of  richer  men? 

50 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

tion  the  particular  letter  in  question  in  order  to 
remind  the  reader  of  these  famihar  phrases,  which 
are  current  in  every  country  where  the  theory  of 
sociaHsm  has  spread  itself. 

Now  what  does  all  this  talk  about  the  emancipa- 
tion of  labor  mean?  It  can  only  mean  one  or 
other  of  two  things:  either  that  the  economic 
prosperity  of  every  nation  in  the  future  will  de- 
pend on  the  emancipation  of  every  average  mind 
from  the  guidance  of  any  minds  that  are  in  any 
way  superior  to  itself,  or  are  able  to  enhance  the 
productivity  of  an  average  pair  of  hands — a  propo- 
sition so  ludicrous  that  nobody  would  consciously 
assent  to  it;  or  else  it  means  a  continued  assent 
to  the  theory  which  fails  to  correlate  labor  with 
directive  ability  at  all,  and  so  never  raises  the 
question  of  w^hether  the  latter  is  necessary  or  no. 

What,  then,  becomes  of  that  chorus  of  vehement 
protestations,  with  which  my  critics  in  America 
were  all  so  eager  to  overwhelm  me,  to  the  effect 
that  socialists  to-day  recognize  as  clearly  as  I  do 
that  "common  manual  labor,"  as  Mr.  Hillquit  puts 
it,  "is  impotent  to  produce  the  wealth  of  modern 
nations,"  apart  from  the  "organization  and  con- 
trol" of  the  minds  most  competent  to  direct  it? 
That  the  more  intellectual  socialists  of  to-day  do 
recognize  this  fact — some  with  greater  and  some 
with  less  distinctness — is  the  very  point  on  which 
I  am  anxious  to  insist.  We  shall  have  abundant 
opportunities  for  considering  it  later  on.  For  the 
moment,  however,  I  pause  to  ask  them  the  follow- 

51 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

ing  question.  Recognizing,  as  they  do,  and  eagerly 
proclaiming  as  they  do,  whenever  they  address 
themselves  to  those  who  are  capable  of  serious 
dispute  with  them,  that  the  original  theory  of 
socialism,  which  was  the  creed  of  such  bodies  as 
the  International,  is  absolutely  false  in  itself,  and 
in  many  of  the  expectations  which  it  stimulates, 
why  do  not  they  set  themselves,  whenever  they 
address  the  multitude,  to  expose  and  repudiate  a 
fallacy  in  which  they  no  longer  believe?  Do  they 
do  this?  Do  they  make  an  attempt  to  do  this? 
On  the  contrary,  as  a  rule,  though  there  are  doubt- 
less many  honorable  exceptions,  they  endeavor  to 
hide  from  the  multitude  their  intellectual  change 
of  front  altogether;  and,  instead  of  insisting  that 
the  undirected  labor  of  the  many  is,  in  the  modern 
world,  impotent  to  produce  anything,  they  con- 
tinue to  speak  of  it  as  though  it  produced  every- 
thing, and  as  though  no  class  other  than  the  labor- 
ing fulfilled  any  economic  function  or  had  any 
right  to  exist. 

Let  me  give  the  reader  an  example,  which  is 
curiously  apt  here.  It  is  taken  from  Mr,  Hillquit's 
own  attack  on  myself,  which  filled  the  front  sheet 
of  a  newspaper,  and  was  distributed  to  the  public 
at  the  door  of  one  of  the  buildings  in  which  I  spoke. 
Of  the  short  passages,  amounting  to  some  twenty 
lines  out  of  six  hundred,  in  which  alone  he  conde- 
scended to  detailed  argument,  the  first  is  that  in 
which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  he  declares  that  all 
socialists  know,   without  any  instruction  on  my 

52 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

part,  that  common  manual  labor,  unless  it  is  di- 
rected by  ability,  is  "impotent  to  produce  the 
wealth  of  modern  nations."  But  having  made  this 
admission  with  much  blowing  of  trumpets,  he  im- 
mediately drops  it,  and  instead  of  developing  its 
consequences,  he  diverts  the  attention  of  his  read- 
ers from  it  by  a  long  series  of  irrelevancies ;  nor 
does  he  return  to  the  question  of  directive  ability 
at  all  till  he  is  nearing  the  end  of  his  discourse, 
when  he  suddenly  takes  it  up  again,  declaring  that 
he  will  meet  and  refute  me  on  ground  which  I  my- 
self have  chosen,  and  show  that  wealth — at  all 
events  in  the  commercial  sense — is  still  produced  by 
manual  labor  alone.  He  refers  to  my  selection  of 
the  case  of  a  printed  book,  as  illustrating,  in  the 
manner  explained  in  an  earlier  chapter,  the  part 
which  directive  ability  plays  in  modern  production. 
The  economic  value  of  an  edition  of  a  printed  book, 
I  said,  as  the  reader  will  remember,  depends  in  the 
most  obvious  way,  not  on  the  labor  of  the  com- 
positors, but  on  the  quality  of  the  directions  which 
the  author  imposes  on  this  labor  through  his  manu- 
script— the  author's  mind  being  typical  of  directive 
ability  generally.  And  what  has  Mr.  Hillquit — 
the  intellectual  Ajax  of  the  socialists — got  to  say 
about  this?  "Whether  a  book,"  he  says,  "is  a 
work  of  genius  or  mere  rubbish  will  largely  affect 
its  literary  or  artistic  value;  but  it  will  have  very 
little  bearing  on  its  economic  or  commercial  value." 
This,  he  goes  on  to  argue,  will,  despite  all  my 
objections,  be  found  to  depend  on  ordinary  manual 
'  53 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

labor,  of  which  the  labor  of  the  hands  of  the  com- 
positors is  that  which  concerns  us  most.  Nothing, 
according  to  him,  can  be  more  evident  than  this. 
"For  the  market  price,"  he  says,  "of  a  wretched 
detective  story,  of  the  same  length  as  Hamlet,  and 
printed  in  the  same  way,  will  be  exactly  the  same 
as  that  of  a  copy  of  Hamlet  itself." 

Now  if  we  consider  Mr.  Hillquit  as  a  purely 
literary  critic,  we  can  but  admire  his  subtlety  in 
discovering  that  the  literary  value  of  a  book  is 
largely  affected  by  the  fact  of  the  book's  not  being 
rubbish ;  but  when  he  descends  from  pure  criticism 
to  economics,  it  is  difficult,  unless  we  suppose  him 
to  have  taken  leave  of  his  senses,  to  imagine  that 
he  can  himself  believe  in  the  medley  of  nonsense 
propounded  by  him.  For  what  he  is  here  doing — 
or  more  probably  pretending  to  do — is  to  confuse 
the  cost  of  producing  an  edition  of  a  book  with 
the  commercial  value  of  that  edition  when  pro- 
duced. The  labor  in  question  no  doubt  determines 
the  price  at  which  the  printed  paper  can  be  sold  at 
at  profit,  or  without  loss ;  but  the  number  of  copies 
which  the  public  will  be  willing  to  buy,  or,  in  other 
words,  the  value  of  the  edition  commercially,  de- 
pends on  qualities  resident  in  the  mind  of  the 
author,  which  render  the  book  attractive  to  but 
few  readers,  or  to  many.  Whether  these  qualities 
amount  to  genius  in  the  higher  sense  of  the  word, 
or  to  nothing  more  than  a  knack  of  titillating  the 
curiosity  of  the  vulgar,  docs  not  affect  the  question. 
In  either  case — and  this  is  the  sole  important  fact 

54 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

— they  are  qualities  of  the  author's  mind,  and  of 
the  author's  mind  alone ;  and  the  labor  of  the  com- 
positors conduces  to  the  production  of  a  pile  of 
volumes  which  is  of  large,  of  little,  or  of  no  value 
commercially,  not  according  to  the  dexterity  with 
which  this  labor  is  performed,  but  according  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  author's  mind  directs  it. 

That  any  human  being  who  is  capable  of  perceiv- 
ing that  the  literary  quality  of  a  book  is  largely  af- 
fected by  the  fact  of  the  book's  not  being  rubbish, 
should  seriously  suppose  that  the  salable  value  of 
editions — whether  they  are  editions  of  a  popular 
novel,  or  of  a  treatise  on  the  conchology  of  Kam- 
chatka, is  proportionate  to  the  number  of  letters 
in  them  arranged  in  parallel  lines — for  Mr.  Hill- 
quit's  argument  means  neither  more  nor  less  than 
this — is,  let  me  repeat,  incredible.  What,  then,  is 
the  explanation  of  his  indulging  in  a  performance 
of  this  degrading  kind?  The  explanation  is  that 
he,  like  so  many  of  his  colleagues,  though  recogniz- 
ing personally  that  labor  among  "modern  nations" 
depends  for  its  higher  productivity  on  the  picked 
men  who  direct  it,  cannot  bring  himself  to  renounce, 
when  he  is  making  his  appeal  to  the  masses,  the 
old  doctrine  that  they  are  the  sole  producers;  and 
accordingly  having  started  with  the  ostentatious 
admission  that  directive  ability  is  as  essential  to 
production  as  labor  is,  he  endeavors  by  his  verbal 
jugglery  with  the  case  of  a  printed  book  to  convey 
the  impression  that  labor  produces  all  values  after 
all;    and  he  actually  manages  to  wind  up  with  a 

55 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

repetition  of  the  old  Marxian  moral  that  the  profits 
of  ability  mean  nothing  but  labor  which  has  not 
been  paid  for.* 

One  of  my  reasons,  then,  for  beginning  the  pres- 
ent examination  of  socialism,  with  exposing  the 
fallacy  of  principles  which  the  intellectual  socialists 
of  to-day  are  so  eager  to  proclaim  that  they  have 
long  since  abandoned,  is  the  fact  that  these  princi- 
ples are  still  the  principles  of  the  multitude;  that 
for  practical  purposes  they  are  those  which  most 
urgently  require  refutation ;  and  that  the  intellect- 
ual socialists  who  have  doubtless  repudiated  them 
personally,  not  only  do  not  attempt  to  discredit 
them  in  the  eyes  of  the  ignorant,  but  themselves 
continue  to  appeal  to  them  as  instruments  of 
popular  agitation. 

My  other  reason  for  following  the  course  in  ques- 
tion is  that  the  theory  of  socialism  in  its  higher  and 
more  recent  forms,  which  recognizes  directive  in- 
tellect in  addition  to  manual  effort  as  one  of  the 
forces  essential  to  the  production  of  modern  wealth 
cannot  be  understood  and  estimated  in  any  profit- 
able way,  without  a  previous  examination  of  those 
earlier  doctrines  and  ideas,  some  of  which  it  still 
retains,  while  it  modifies  and  rejects  others. 

And  now  let  us  take  up  again  the  thread  of  our 
main  argument.  We  laid  this  down  early  in  the 
present  chapter,  having  emphasized  the  fact  that, 
the  intellectual  socialists  of  to-day  agree,  on  their 

'  According  to  Mr.  Hillquit,  Dickens,  for  example,  made  his 
whole  fortune  by  robbing  his  compositors. 

56 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

own  admission,  with  one  proposition  at  all  events 
which  has  been  elucidated  in  this  volume — namely, 
that  labor  alone,  as  one  of  their  spokesmen  puts  it, 
"is  impotent  to  produce  the  wealth  of  modern 
nations,"  the  faculties  and  the  functions  of  the 
minority  by  whom  labor  is  directed  and  organized 
being  no  less  essential  to  the  result  than  the  labor 
of  the  majority  itself.  In  the  following  chapter 
we  shall  see  that  this  agreement  extends  yet  further. 


CHAPTER  VI 

REPUDIATION     OF     MARX     BY     MODERN     SOCIALISTS, 

CONTINUED.       THEIR    RECOGNITION    OF    CAPITAL 

AS  THE  IMPLEMENT  OF  DIRECTIVE  ABILITY. 

THEIR  NEW  POSITION,  AND  THEIR  NEW 

THEORETICAL    DIFFICULTIES 

The  more  educated  socialists  of  to-day,  besides  virtually 
accepting  the  argument  of  the  preceding  chapters  with  regard 
to  labor,  virtually  accept  the  argument  set  forth  in  them  with 
regard  to  capital. 

Mr.  Sidney  Webb,  for  example,  recognizes  it  as  an  imple- 
ment of  direction  the  only  alternative  to  which  is  a  system 
of  legal  coercion. 

Other  socialists  advocate  the  continued  use  of  wage-capital 
as  the  implement  of  direction,  but  they  imagine  that  the  situa- 
tion would  be  radically  changed  by  making  the  "state"  the 
sole  capitalist. 

But  the  "state,"  as  some  of  them  are  beginning  to  realize, 
would  be  merely  the  private  men  of  ability — the  existing  em- 
ployers— turned  into  state  officials,  and  deprived  of  most  of 
their  present  inducements  to  exert  themselves. 

A  socialistic  state  theoretically  could  always  command  labor, 
for  labor  can  be  exacted  by  force,  but  the  exercise  of  ability 
must  be  voluntary,  and  can  only  be  secured  by  a  system  of 
adequate  rewards  and  inducements. 

Two  problems  with  which  modern  socialism  is  confronted: 
How  would  it  test  its  able  men  so  as  to  select  the  best  of  them 
for  places  of  power  ?     What  rewards  could  it  offer  them  which 

58 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

would  induce  them  systematically  to  develop,  and  be  willing 
to  exercise,  their  exceptional  faculties? 

The  reader  will  remember  how,  having  first 
elucidated  the  part  which  exceptional  mental 
faculties,  concentrated  on  the  direction  of  labor, 
and  here  called  ability,  play  in  modern  produc- 
tion, I  proceeded  to  the  question  of  the  means 
by  which  this  direction  is  accomplished,  and 
showed  that  these  were  supplied  by  the  possession 
of  wage-capital — capitalism  thus  representing  no 
mere  passive  monopoly,  but  a  system  of  reins 
which  are  attached  to  innumerable  horses,  and  are 
useless  except  as  vehicles  of  the  skill  with  which 
the  coachmen  handle  them.  We  shall  find  that 
by  implication,  if  not  always  by  direct  admission, 
the  intellectual  socialists  of  to-day,  are  in  agree- 
ment with  this  further  portion  of  the  present 
argument  also. 

In  order  to  demonstrate  that  such  is  the  case, 
let  me  briefly  call  attention  to  a  point  on  which 
we  shall  have  to  dwell  at  much  greater  length 
presently — namely,  that  these  socialists,  though 
they  reject  the  theory  of  production  on  which 
morally  and  intellectually  the  earlier  socialism 
based  itself,  persist  in  making  promises  to  the 
laborers  precisely  of  the  same  kind  as  those  with 
which  the  earlier  socialism  first  whetted  their  ap- 
petites. In  especial  besides  promising  them  indefi- 
nitely augmented  wealth,  they  continue  to  promise 
them  also  some   sort  of  economic  emancipation; 

59 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

and  many  of  these  socialists,  in  explicit  accord  with 
their  predecessors,  declare  that  what  they  mean 
by  emancipation  is  the  entire  abolition  of  the  wage- 
system. 

Prominent  among  this  number  are  Mr.  Sidney 
Webb  and  his  colleagues,  who  are  certainly  the 
best  educated  group  of  socialistic  thinkers  in  Eng- 
land, Mr.  Webb,  in  particular,  is  a  man  of  con- 
spicuous talent,  and  few  writers  can  afford  a  more 
favorable  illustration  than  he  does  of  the  lines 
along  which  the  socialistic  theory  of  society  is 
compelled,  by  the  exigencies  of  logical  thought, 
to  develop  itself.  Now,  in  proposing  to  abolish  the 
wage-system,  Mr.  Webb  and  his  fellow-theorists  do 
not  do  so  without  specifying  a  definite  substitute; 
and  when  we  come  to  consider  what  their  substi- 
tute is,  we  shall  find  that  it  implies,  on  their  part, 
a  full  recognition  of  function  which  wage-capital, 
as  the  instrument  of  ability,  performs  in  modern 
production. 

Now  the  reader  must  observe  that,  in  indicating 
the  nature  of  the  function  in  question — namely, 
that  of  providing  a  means  by  which  the  process  of 
direction  may  be  accomplished,  and  in  showing 
how  under  the  existing  system  wage-capital  is 
what  actually  performs  it,  I  never  for  a  moment 
implied  that  wage-capital  was  the  only  means  by 
which  the  same  result  might  be  accomplished.  In- 
deed, if  we  look  back  into  the  past  history  of  man- 
kind, we  shall  find  that  there  are  two  systems  other 
than  that  of  wages,  by  which  the  conformity  of 

60 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

labor  to  the  requisite  directions  of  ability,  not  only 
might  be,  but  actually  has  been  secured.  One  of 
these  is  the  corvee  system  prevalent  in  the  Middle 
Ages.  The  other  system  is  that  of  slavery.  Under 
the  corvee  system,  peasants  were  the  proprietors  of 
the  plots  of  ground  on  which  they  lived,  and  were 
thus  able  to  maintain  themselves  by  working  at 
their  own  discretion;  but  they  were  compelled  by 
their  tenure  to  place  a  certain  part  of  their  time 
at  the  disposal  of  their  feudal  superior,  and  to 
work  according  to  his  orders.  If  only  a  number  of 
otherwise  independent  peasants  could  be  forced 
to  give  enough  of  their  time  to  the  proprietor  of 
a  factory  to-day,  the  entire  use  of  wage -capital 
would  in  his  case  be  one.  The  same  thing  is  true 
of  slavery.  Like  the  peasant  proprietor,  who  gives 
part  of  his  time  to  his  overlord,  the  slave  is  pro- 
vided with  the  necessaries  of  life  independently  of 
his  obedience  to  the  detailed  orders  of  his  master. 
His  master  feeds  him  just  as  he  would  feed  an 
animal;  the  industrial  obedience  is  insured  by  the 
subsequent  application  of  force. 

These  two  coercive  systems  are  the  only  alter- 
natives to  the  wage-system  that  have  ever  been 
found  workable  in  the  past  history  of  the  world. 
We  will  now  consider  the  system  which  some  of 
the  most  thoughtful  socialists  of  to-day  are  pro- 
posing as  a  substitute  for  it  in  the  hoped-for  so- 
ciaHstic  future.  The  school  of  EngHsh  socialists, 
of  which  Mr.  Webb  is  the  best-known  member, 
have  given  to  the  world  a  volume  called  Fabian 

6i 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

Essays.  This  volume  has  been  since  repubHshed 
in  America;  and  to  the  American  edition  a  special 
preface  was  prefixed  with  a  view  to  emphasizing 
the  essentials  of  a  socialistic  conception  of  society, 
and  bringing  the  details  of  the  socialistic  theory 
•up  to  date.  In  this  preface  it  is  stated,  with  re- 
gard to  the  apportionment  of  material  wealth  gen- 
erally, that  "the  only  truly  socialistic  scheme"  is 
one  which  "  will  absolutely  abolish  all  economic  dis- 
tinctions, and  prevent  the  possibility  of  their  ever 
again  arising."  And  how  would  it  accomplish  this 
end?  "By  making,"  says  the  writer,  "an  equal 
provision  for  all  an  indefeasible  condition  of  citizen- 
ship, without  any  regard  whatever  to  the  relative 
specific  services  of  the  different  citizens.  The  ren- 
dering of  such  services  on  the  other  hand,"  the 
writer  goes  on,  "instead  of  being  left  to  the  option 
of  the  citizen,  with  the  alternative  of  starvation 
(as  is  the  case  under  the  wage-system)  would  be 
secured  under  one  uniform  law  of  civic  duty,  pre- 
cisely like  other  forms  of  taxation  or  military  ser- 
vice." 

Such,  then,  is  the  system  which  is  put  forward 
by  educated  socialists  to-day  as  the  only  means 
of  escape  from  the  existing  system  of  wages.  And 
an  escape  from  the  wage -system  —  and  one  not 
theoretically  impracticable — it  no  doubt  is ;  but  an 
escape  into  what  ?  It  is  an  escape  into  one  of  those 
systems  which  I  have  just  now  mentioned.  That 
is  to  say,  it  is  an  escape  into  economic  slavery. 
For  the  very  essence  of  the  position  of  the  slave,  as 

62 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

contrasted  with  the  wage-paid  laborer,  is,  so  far  as 
the  direction  of  his  industrial  actions  is  concerned, 
that  he  has  not  to  work  as  he  is  bidden  in  order  to 
gain  a  livelihood,  but  that,  his  livelihood  being  as- 
sured him  no  matter  how  he  behaves  himself,  he  is 
obliged  to  work  as  he  is  bidden  in  order  to  avoid 
the  lash,  or  some  other  form  of  equally  effective 
punishment. 

Now  I  am  not  attempting  here  to  find  any  fault 
with  socialism  on  the  ground  that  it  would,  on  the 
admission  of  some  of  its  most  thoughtful  expo- 
nents, be  obliged  to  re-establish  slavery  as  the  price 
of  emancipation  from  "wagedom."  I  have  com- 
mented on  this  fact  solely  with  a  view  to  showing 
that  the  nature  of  the  alternative  to  the  wage- 
system  thus  proposed  indicates  a  full  recognition, 
on  the  part  of  those  proposing  it,  of  the  nature  and 
necessity  of  the  functions  which  the  wage-system 
performs  at  present — namely,  that  of  supplying  the 
means  by  which  the  ablest  minds  in  the  community 
secure  from  the  mass  of  the  citizens  the  punctual 
performance  of  the  industrial  tasks  required  of 
them.  I  am  not  even  insisting  that  such  a  slave- 
system  as  Mr.  Webb  contemplates  is  logically 
essential  to  the  theory  of  intellectual  socialism  at 
all.  On  the  contrary,  as  may  be  seen  from  a  letter 
addressed  to  myself  by  a  member  of  a  socialistic 
body  at  Chicago,  many  socialists,  as  to  this  matter, 
are  opposed  to  Mr.  Webb  altogether.  Socialists, 
says  my  correspondent,  speaking  for  himself  and 
his  associates,  have  no  objection  whatever  to  the 

63 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

system  of  "wagedom"  as  such;  nor  do  they  wish 
to  see  the  direction  of  labor  "  enforced  by  the  power 
of  the  law."  They  recognize,  he  says,  quoting  my 
own  words,  that  production  under  socialism,  just 
as  under  the  present  system,  will  be  efficient  in 
proportion  as  labor  is  directed  by  the  best  minds 
"which  can  enhance  the  productivity  of  an  aver- 
age pair  of  hands."  They  object  to  the  wage- 
system  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  means  by  "which 
the  employing  class  can  make  a  profit  out  of 
the  laborers";  and  the  only  change  which  in  this 
respect  socialists  desire  to  introduce  is  to  transfer 
the  business  of  wage-paying  from  the  private  capi- 
talist to  the  state — the  state  which  will  have  no 
"private  interests  to  serve,"  and  consequently  no 
temptation  to  appropriate  any  profits  for  itself. 
Socialists,  he  continues,  subject  to  this  proviso, 
would  leave  the  wage-system  just  as  it  is  now. 
The  state  would  pay  those  who  worked,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  work  they  did;  but  the  idle 
or  refractory  it  would  "leave  to  starve  to  death, 
if  they  so  elected,  unless  somebody  wished  to  keep 
them  alive,  as  happens  at  the  present  time." 

The  difference  between  socialists  with  regard  to 
this  question,  however,  does  nothing  in  itself  to 
discredit  the  socialistic  theory  as  a  whole.  It  has 
merely  the  effect  of  providing  us  with  two  sets  of 
witnesses  instead  of  one  to  the  truth  of  a  common 
principle,  which  is  recognized  by  both  equally. 
One  set  declares  that  the  ability  of  the  most  com- 
petent men  must  direct  the  labors  of  the  majority 

64 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

by  means  of  an  appeal  to  their  fears;  the  other 
declares  that  the  same  result  must  be  accomplished, 
as  it  is  at  the  present  time,  by  an  appeal  to  their 
choice  and  prudence.  In  either  case  it  is  admitted 
that  the  separate  manual  tasks  performed  by  the 
majority  of  the  citizens  must  be  directed  and  co- 
ordinated by  the  most  competent  minds  somehow; 
and  that  the  process  of  direction  must  have  some 
system  at  the  back  of  it,  by  means  of  which  the 
orders  issued  to  each  laborer  can  be  enforced — this 
system  being  either  a  continuation  of  that  which 
is  in  existence  now,  or  another  which  would  to  most 
people  be  in  many  ways  more  distasteful. 

The  socialists  of  to-day,  in  admitting  that  such 
is  the  case,  have  at  last  placed  themselves  in  a  line 
with  the  sober  realities  of  life,  and  in  doing  so 
have  assimilated  their  own  analysis  of  production 
to  the  analysis  set  forth  in  the  beginning  of  the 
present  volume. 

Apart  from  the  fact  that,  according  to  their  con- 
structive programme,  private  capitalism  would  be 
abolished,  and  the  sole  capitalist  would  be  the  state, 
the  socialistic  system  of  production,  as  they  have 
now  come  to  conceive  of  it,  would,  in  respect  of  the 
vital  forces  involved,  be  merely  the  existing  system 
continued  under  another  name,  with  a  directing 
minority  composed  of  exceptional  men  on  the  one 
hand,  and  a  majority  composed  of  directed  men 
on  the  other.  But  in  the  minds  of  many  socialistic 
thinkers  the  simplicity  of  the  situation  is  obscured 
by  the  vagueness  of  the  ideas  which  they  associate 

6S 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

with  the  phrase  "  the  state."  For  them  these  ideas 
are  Hk3  a  fog,  into  which  private  capitalism  disap- 
pears, and  in  which  the  forces  represented  by  it  lose 
all  definite  character.  The  state,  however,  is  in 
reality  nothing  but  a  collection  of  individuals ;  and 
if  the  state,  besides  being  a  political  body,  is  to 
become  the  sole  industrial  capitalist  also,  state 
capitalism,  just  like  private  capitalism,  will  suc- 
ceed or  fail  in  proportion  to  the  talents  of  those  to 
whom  capital  is  intrusted  as  a  means  of  directing 
the  labor. 

If,  then,  in  any  capitalistic  country,  such  as 
Great  Britain  or  America,  the  business  of  produc- 
tion could  become  socialized  to-morrow,  the  best 
that  could  possibly  happen  would  be  the  transfor- 
mation of  the  present  employers  into  so  many  state 
officials,  who  industrially  would  be  the  state  itself. 
The  only  difference  would  be  that  they  would  have 
lost  all  personal  interest  in  the  pecuniary  results 
of  the  talents  which  they  would  still  be  expected 
to  exercise.^ 

Now  if  such  a  transformation  of  circumstances 
could  be  suddenly  affected  to-morrow,  without  any 
corresponding  change  in  the  dispositions  of  these 
men  themselves,  there  is  theoretically  no  reason 
for  supposing  that  the  process  of  production  might 

^  While  these  pages  were  in  the  hands  of  the  printers,  a  work 
was  pubHshed  by  an  American  sociaHst,  in  which  it  is  asserted 
that  the  sociaHsm  of  America  would  consist  of  this  precise  proc- 
ess— namely,  the  conversion  of  all  the  active  employers  and 
directors  of  labor  into  the  salaried  servants  of  some  state  de- 
partment. 

66 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

not  continue  to  be  as  efficient  as  it  is  now,  so  long 
as  this  precise  situation  lasted.  But  it  could  not 
last.  It  would  be  transitory  in  its  very  nature. 
The  present  generation  of  industrial  directors  would 
die,  and  in  order  that  the  efficiency  of  the  state 
as  the  director  of  labor  might  be  maintained,  other 
men  would  have  to  be  discovered  who  were  pos- 
sessed of  equal  ability  in  the  first  place,  and  who 
in  the  second  could  be  trusted  or  compelled  to  use 
it  unremittingly  to  the  utmost,  in  the  absence  of 
the  main  motive  which  has  actuated  such  men 
hitherto. 

Apart  from  the  problems  involved  in  these  two 
requirements,  neither  the  theory  of  production 
which  is  put  forward,  nor  the  productive  system 
which  is  advocated,  by  the  intellectual  socialists 
of  to-day,  contains  anything  with  which  theoreti- 
cally the  most  uncompromising  of  their  opponents 
could  quarrel.  It  is  on  these  two  problems  that 
everything  will  be  found  to  turn — one  being  the 
problem  of  how,  under  the  conditions  which  so- 
cialism would  introduce,  the  ablest  men  could  be 
discovered,  and  invested  according  to  their  effi- 
cency  with  the  requisite  industrial  authority;  the 
other  being  the  problem  of  how,  under  the  same 
conditions,  it  would  be  possible  to  secure  from  such 
men  that  full  exertion  of  their  talents,  on  which 
the  material  prosperity  of  the  entire  community 
would  depend. 

For  socialists  these  tw^o  problems  may  be  said 
to  be  practically  new.     So  long  as  socialism  based 

67 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

itself  on  the  Marxian  theory  of  production,  the 
selection,  and  the  subsequent  conduct,  of  the  men 
who  would  compose  the  industrial  state,  presented 
no  appreciable  difficulties.  For  the  state  would, 
according  to  this  theory,  be  in  no  sense  the  director 
of  the  laborers;  it  would  merely  be  their  humble 
servant.  It  would  be  like  an  old  woman  who  sat 
all  day  long  in  a  barn,  counting,  sorting,  and  mak- 
ing up  into  equal  shares  the  different  products 
brought  in  to  her  by  her  sons,  who  worked  out  of 
her  sight  in  a  dozen  different  fields;  or,  to  quote 
the  words  of  one  of  my  late  socialistic  correspond- 
ents, the  functions  of  the  industrial  state  would  be 
"simply  industrial-clerical."  It  would  consist  of 
clerks  and  shop-boys,  the  former  of  whom  added 
up  accounts,  while  the  latter  weighed,  sorted,  and 
handed  out  goods  over  a  counter.  If  the  industrial 
state  were  to  be  nothing  more  than  this,  the  selec- 
tion of  an  adequate  personnel  would  doubtless  pre- 
sent no  difficulties.  But  as  soon  as  the  socialistic 
theory  recognizes  that  the  industrial  state,  instead 
of  being  the  mere  receiver  and  dispenser  of  products 
produced  by  labor,  would  represent  the  intellectual 
forces  by  which  every  process  of  labor  is  directed, 
the  problems  of  how  the  individuals  who  compose 
the  state  are  to  be  chosen,  and  of  how  the  con- 
tinuous exertion  of  their  highest  faculties  is  to  be 
secured,  become  the  fundamental  problems  which 
socialists  are  called  upon  to  consider. 

If  we  assume  that  under  the  regime  of  socialism 
a  nation  could  always  secure,  as  the  official  direc- 

68 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

tors  of  its  labor,  the  men  whose  ability  would  enable 
them  to  direct  it  to  the  best  advantage,  and  could 
force  these  men  to  exert  their  exceptional  faculties 
to  the  utmost,  the  exaction  of  obedience  to  their 
orders  from  the  common  laboring  citizens,  let  me 
say  once  more,  would  present  no  theoretical  dififi- 
culty.  But  the  task  of  securing  the  requisite 
ability  itself  is  of  a  wholly  different  kind.  Any 
one  armed  with  an  adequate  implement  of  author- 
ity, whether  the  control  of  the  means  of  subsist- 
ence or  the  power  of  inflicting  punishment,  can 
secure,  within  limits,  from  any  ordinary  man  the 
punctual  performance  of  any  ordinary  manual  task, 
and  the  performance  of  it  in  a  prescribed  way ;  but 
he  is  able  to  do  this  for  the  following  reasons  only : 
So  far  as  ordinary  labor  is  concerned,  any  one  man, 
by  simply  observing  another,  can  tell  with  approx- 
im.ate  accuracy  what  the  other  man  can  do — 
whether  he  can  trundle  a  wheel-barrow,  hit  a  nail 
on  the  head,  file  a  casting,  or  lay  brick  on  brick. 
Further,  the  director  of  labor  knows  the  precise 
nature  of  the  result  which  he  requires  in  each  case 
that  the  individual  laborer  shall  accomplish.  Hence 
he  can  exact  from  each  laborer  conformity  to  the 
injunctions  laid  on  him,  in  respect  both  of  the  gen- 
eral character  and  the  particular  application  of  his 
efforts.  But  in  respect  of  the  faculties  distinctive 
of  those  exceptional  men  by  whom  alone  ordinary 
labor  can  be  directed  to  the  best  advantage,  both 
these  conditions  are  wanting.  It  is  impossible  to 
tell  that  any  man  of  ability  possesses  any  excep- 

6  69 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

tional  faculties  for  directing  labor  at  all,  unless  he 
himself  chooses  to  show  them;  and,  indeed,  until 
circumstances  supply  him  with  some  motive  for 
showing  them,  he  may  very  well  not  be  aware  that 
he  possesses  such  faculties  himself.  Moreover,  even 
if  he  gives  the  world  some  reason  to  suspect  their 
existence,  the  world  at  large  will  not  know  what  he 
can  do  with  them,  and  will  consequently  be  unable 
to  impose  on  him  any  definite  task.  A  press- 
gang  could  have  forced  Columbus  to  labor  as  a 
common  seaman;  but  not  all  the  population  of 
Europe  could  have  forced  him  to  discover  a  world 
beyond  the  Atlantic ;  for  the  mass  of  his  contempo- 
raries, until  his  enterprise  proved  successful,  obsti- 
nately refused  to  believe  that  there  was  such  a 
world  to  discover. 

The  men,  therefore,  on  the  exercise  of  w^hose 
directive  ability  the  productive  efficiency  of  a  mod- 
ern nation  depends,  would  occupy,  with  regard 
to  any  nation  organized  on  socialistic  principles, 
a  position  fundamentally  different  from  that  of  the 
ordinary  laborer.  The  exercise  of  their  distinctive 
powers,  unlike  those  of  the  laborer,  could  never  be 
secured  by  coercion;  because  neither  the  nation 
at  large,  nor  any  body  of  representatives,  could 
possibly  know  that  these  powers  existed  until  the 
possessors  of  them  chose  to  reveal  the  secret.  They 
could  not  be  made  to  reveal  it.  They  could  only 
be  induced  to  do  so ;  and  they  could  only  be  induced 
to  do  so  by  a  society  which  was  so  constituted  as  to 
offer  for  an  exceptional  performance  some  excep- 

70 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

tional  reward,  just  as  a  reward  is  offered  for  evidence 
against  an  unknown  murderer.  The  reward  at  pres- 
ent offered  them  is  the  possession  of  some  excep- 
tional share  of  the  wealth  to  the  production  of  which 
their  efforts  have  exceptionally  contributed;  and, 
hence,  since  it  is  the  object  of  all  socialistic  schemes 
to  render  the  achievement  of  such  a  reward  impos- 
sible, we  shall  find  that  the  ultimate  problem  for 
socialists  of  the  modern  school  is  how  to  discover 
another  which  in  practice  will  be  equally  effica- 
cious. 

But  though  this  is  the  ultimate  problem,  it  is 
very  far  from  being  the  only  one  which  the  theory 
of  socialism  in  its  modern  form  raises.  Directive 
ability,  which  is  a  compound  of  many  faculties, 
varies  greatly  in  degree  and  kind.  Its  value,  if 
tested  by  the  results  of  its  actual  application  to 
labor,  would  in  some  cases  be  immense,  in  other 
cases  very  small,  and  in  others  it  would  be  a  minus 
quantity.  Thus,  even  if  we  suppose  that  the  exer- 
cise of  it  is  so  far  its  own  reward  that  all  who  believe 
themselves  to  possess  it — and  these  are  a  very  large 
number — will,  for  the  mere  pleasure  of  exercising 
it,  be  eager  to  gain  the  positions  which  will  make  its 
exercise  possible,  the  problem  would  remain  of  how 
to  discriminate  those  who  would,  as  industrial  di- 
rectors, achieve  the  greatest  successes,  from  those 
who  woiild  bring  about  nothing  but  relative  or 
absolute  failure.  This  problem  of  how,  under  a 
regime  of  socialism,  ability  could  be  so  tested  that 
the  practical  means  of  direction  could  be  granted 

7^ 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

to  or  withheld  from  it,  according  to  its  actual  effi- 
ciency, is  the  problem  which  we  will  consider  first; 
for  though  of  secondary  importance  as  compared 
with  the  problem  of  motive,  it  is  in  more  imme- 
diate connection  with  the  details  of  daily  business. 


CHAPTER  VII 

PROXIMATE    DIFFICULTIES.       ABLE    MEN    AS    A     COR- 
PORATION    OF     STATE    OFFICIALS 

How  are  the  men  fittest  for  posts  of  industrial  power  to  be 
selected  from  the  less  fit? 

This  problem  solved  automatically  by  the  existing  system 
of  private  and  separate  capitals. 

The  fusion  of  all  private  capitals  into  a  single  state  capital 
would  make  this  solution  impossible,  and  would  provide  no 
other.  The  only  machinery  by  which  the  more  efficient  direc- 
tors of  labor  could  be  discriminated  from  the  less  efficient  would 
be  broken.     Case  of  the  London  County  Council's  steamboats. 

Two  forms  which  the  industrial  state  under  socialism  might 
conceivably  take:  The  official  directors  of  industry  might  be 
either  an  autocratic  bureaucracy,  or  they  might  else  be  sub- 
ject to  elected  politicians  representing  the  knowledge  and  opin- 
ions prevalent  among  the  majority. 

Estimate  of  the  results  which  would  arise  in  the  former  case. 
Illustrations  from  actual  bureaucratic  enterprise. 

Estimate  of  the  results  which  would  arise  in  the  latter  case. 
The  state,  as  representing  the  average  opinion  of  the  masses, 
brought  to  bear  on  scientific  industrial  enterprise.    Illustrations. 

The  state  as  sole  printer  and  publisher.  State  capitalism 
would  destroy  the  machinery  of  industrial  progress  just  as  it 
would  destroy  the  machinery  by  which  thought  and  knowl- 
edge develop. 

But  behind  the  question  of  whether  socialism  could  provide 
ability  with  the  conditions  or  the  machinery  requisite  for  its 
exercise  is  the  question  of  whether  it  could  provide  it  with 
any  adequate  stimulus. 

For  the  moment,  then,  we  will  waive  the  prob- 
lem of  motive  altogether;   we  will  assume  that  a 

73 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

society  which  denied  to  its  able  men  any  pecuniary 
reward  proportionate  to  the  magnitude  of  its  prod- 
ucts could  provide  them  with  a  motive  of  some 
kind  —  we  need  not  inquire  what  —  which  would 
prompt  them  still  to  exert  themselves  as  eagerly 
as  they  do  now;  and  we  will  merely  consider  how, 
a  multitude  of  such  men  being  given,  the  most 
efficient  of  them  could  be  constantly  selected  as 
the  official  directors  of  labor,  and  the  rest,  in  pro- 
portion to  their  inefficiency,  be  either  dismissed  or 
excluded.  In  order  to  realize  the  difficulties  which, 
in  this  respect,  socialism  would  have  to  face,  let  us 
consider  the  manner  in  which  the  problem  is  solved 
now. 

Under  the  system  of  private  capitalism  it  solves 
itself  by  an  automatic  process.  In  order  that  any 
man  may  direct  the  labor  of  other  men,  he  must, 
under  that  system,  be  the  jjossessor  or  controller  of 
so  much  wage-capital.  Now  this  capital — this  im- 
plement of  direction — in  proportion  as  it  is  em- 
ployed, disappears,  and  is  reproduced  only  by  a 
subsequent  sale  of  the  products  resulting  from  the 
labor  in  the  direction  of  which  it  has  been  ex- 
pended. Thus  a  man,  we  will  say,  invents  a  new 
engine  for  motor-cars,  and  devotes  to  the  production 
of  twenty  engines  of  the  kind  all  the  capital  which 
he  possesses — namely,  twenty-one  thousand  dollars. 
Apart  from  the  raw  material  out  of  which  the 
engines  are  to  be  constructed,  his  whole  expendi- 
ture will  consist  in  paying  wages  to  certain  laborers, 
on  condition  that  they  work  up  this  metal  in  a 

74 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

manner  which  he  prescribes  to  them.  For  the  raw 
metal  he  pays,  we  will  say,  a  thousand  dollars. 
He  pays  to  twenty  laborers  a  thousand  dollars 
apiece  as  wages;  and  the  result  is  twenty  engines. 
If  the  engines  are  successful,  and  if  the  public  will 
give  him  fifteen  hundred  dollars  for  each  of  them, 
the  man  has  got  his  entire  capital  back  again,  with 
nine  thousand  dollars  added  to  it,  and  can  continue 
his  direction  of  labor  by  means  of  wages,  on  the 
same  lines,  and  on  a  much  more  extended  scale. 
But  if  the  engines,  when  tried,  develop  some  in- 
herent defect,  and  he  consequently  can  sell  none  of 
them,  he  may  still,  perhaps,  get  back  the  price  of  the 
raw  metal ;  but  his  whole  twenty  thousand  dollars 
of  wage-capital  will  be  gone,  and  with  it  his  power 
of  directing  any  further  labor  in  the  future.  In 
other  words,  under  the  system  of  private  capitalism, 
if  labor  has  been  directed  by  any  man  in  an  unsuc- 
cessful way,  the  resulting  products  being  such  that 
nobody  cares  to  buy  them,  or  in  exact  proportion 
as  this  result  is  approached,  the  man's  implement 
of  direction  passes  out  of  his  hands  altogether ;  and 
the  simple  fact  of  his  having  directed  labor  ill  de- 
prives him  of  the  means  of  directing  or  of  mis- 
directing it  again. 

But  under  a  system  of  state  socialism  the  situa- 
tion would  be  wholly  changed.  Private  capitalism 
is,  in  this  respect,  self-acting,  and  acts  with  abso- 
lute accuracy,  because  wage-capital  being  divided 
into  a  multitude  of  independent  reservoirs,  its 
waste  at  any  one  point  brings  about  its  own  remedy. 

75 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

Each  reservoir  is  like  a  mill-pond  which  automati- 
cally begins  to  dry  up  whenever  its  contents  are 
employed  in  actuating  a  useless  mill ;  and  the  man 
who  has  wasted  his  water  is  able  to  waste  no  more. 
But  the  moment  the  divisions  between  the  reser- 
voirs are  broken  down,  and  the  separate  capitals 
contained  in  them  become,  as  would  be  the  case 
under  socialism,  fused  together  like  the  waters  of  a 
single  lake,  the  director  of  labor  who  so  misused  any 
portion  of  this  fluid  stock  that  the  products  of  la- 
bor, as  directed  by  him,  failed  to  replace  the  wages 
would  not  thereby  be  incapacitated  from  continu- 
ing his  misdirections  further;  for  the  wage-capital 
dissipated  by  his  incompetence  could,  under  these 
conditions,  always  be  replaced,  and  its  loss  more  or 
less  concealed,  by  fresh  supplies  which  had  really 
a  different  origin.  It  was  only  in  consequence  of 
conditions  resembling  these  that  the  London  County 
Council  was  enabled  to  continue  for  so  long  its 
service  of  Thames  steamboats,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  labor  thus  employed  failed  to  reproduce, 
by  the  functions  which  it  performed  for  the  public, 
more  than  a  fraction  of  capital  which  was  neces- 
sarily consumed  in  its  maintenance.  Had  labor 
been  thus  misdirected  by  any  private  capitalist, 
his  misdirection  of  it  would  have  soon  been  checked 
by  his  loss  of  the  means  of  continuing  it;  but  the 
County  Council,  with  the  purse  of  the  community 
at  its  back,  was  able,  by  taxing  the  industrial 
successes  of  others,  to  refinance  and  prolong  its 
own  industrial  failure. 

76 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

Socialists  fail  to  understand  the  importance  of 
these  considerations.  Many  of  them,  for  example, 
in  the  case  of  the  London  County  Council's  steam- 
boats, defended  that  enterprise  in  spite  of  its 
financial  failure,  on  the  ground  that  the  steam- 
boats were  a  convenience  to  certain  travellers  at 
all  events,  who  in  all  probability  were  persons  of 
modest  means,  while  the  loss  would  be  made  good 
out  of  the  pockets  of  rate-payers  who  were  pre- 
sumably rich.  But  even  if  this  argument  were 
plausible  as  applied  to  a  state  of  society  in  which 
the  incomes  of  some  men  were  greater  than  those 
of  others,  it  would  be  absolutely  inapplicable  to 
conditions  such  as  those  desired  by  socialists,  under 
which  the  incomes  of  all  would  be  fractions,  approx- 
imately equal,  of  a  common  stock  to  the  production 
of  which  all  contributed.  For  it  must  surely  be 
apparent  to  even  the  meanest  intelligence  that 
whatever  diminished  the  aggregate  amount  to  be 
divided  would  diminish  the  fraction  of  it  which 
falls  to  the  share  of  each;  and  it  ought  to  be 
equally  apparent,  though  to  many  people  it  is  not, 
that  the  labor  of  any  laborer  which  is  directed  in 
such  a  way  that  the  men  consume  more  articles  of 
utility  than  they  produce,  or  fail  to  produce  as 
many  as  they  would  do  if  directed  better,  has  this 
precise  effect  of  diminishing  the  divisible  total,  by 
making  it  either  less  than  it  has  been  or  less  than 
it  would  be  otherwise.* 

*  That  such  is  the  case  can  be  seen  easily  enough  by  imagin- 
ing a  socialistic  community  consisting  of  twenty  men,   who 

77 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

Thus,  in  cases  such  as  that  of  the  London  County- 
Council's  steamboats,  the  efficiency  of  labor  is  so 
lessened  by  incompetent  direction  that  the  laborers 
employed  can  only  perform  for  society  one-half  of 
the  services  which  society  must  perform  for  them. 
For  every  hour  which  they  spend  in  conveying  ten 
men  on  the  river,  twenty  men  must  work  to  pro- 
require  and  consume  only  one  article,  bread.  Each  man,  to 
keep  him  alive,  requires  one  loaf  daily;  but  to  eat  two  would 
be  a  comfort  to  him,  and  to  eat  three  would  be  luxury.  The 
community  is  divided  into  two  groups  of  ten  men  each,  one 
man  in  each  group  directing  the  labor  of  the  others.  We  will 
start  with  supposing  that  these  two  directors  are  men  of  equal 
and  also  of  the  highest  ability,  and  that  each  of  the  groups, 
under  these  favorable  conditions,  is  enabled  to  produce  daily 
an  output  of  thirty  loaves.  The  total  output  of  both  in  this 
case  amounts  to  sixty,  which  equally  divided  yields  to  every- 
body the  luxurious  number  of  three.  Let  us  next  suppose 
that  the  director  of  one  group  dies,  that  his  place  is  taken 
by  a  man  of  inferior  powers,  and  that  this  group,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  his  less  efficient  direction,  instead  of  producing  thirty 
loaves  can  produce  no  more  than  ten.  Now,  although  this  fall- 
ing oflF  in  production  has  occurred  in  one  group  only,  the  loss 
which  results  from  it  is  felt  by  the  entire  community.  The 
total  output  has  sunk  from  sixty  loaves  to  forty;  and  the  mem- 
bers of  the  group  which  retains  its  old  efficiency,  no  less  than 
those  of  the  group  which  has  lost  so  much  of  it,  have  to  be 
content,  with  a  dividend,  not  of  three  loaves,  but  two.  Finally, 
let  us  suppose  that,  owing  to  a  continued  deterioration  in  man- 
agement, the  ten  men  of  whom  the  first  group  is  composed  are 
able  to  produce  daily,  not  ten  loaves,  but  only  five.  That  is 
to  say,  the  number  of  loaves  which  they  produce  comes  to  no 
more  than  half  of  the  minimum  they  are  obliged  to  eat.  Here 
it  is  obvious  that,  unless  one-half  of  the  population  is  to  die,  it 
can  only  be  kept  alive  by  being  given  a  supply  of  loaves  which, 
in  consequence  of  its  own  inefficiency,  must  be  taken  out  of 
the  mouths  of  others. 

78 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

vide  them  with  food  and  clothing.  So  long  as 
fortunes  are  unequal,  and  depend  on  individual 
effort  and  enterprise,  such  losses  may  be  localized 
and  obscured  in  a  hundred  different  ways ;  but  the 
moment  all  fortunes,  as  they  would  be  under  the 
regime  of  socialism,  were  reduced  to  specific  frac- 
tions of  the  aggregate  product  of  the  community, 
any  decline  in  the  efficiency  of  the  labor  of  any 
single  group  would  result  in  a  diminution  of  the 
income  of  every  member  of  all  the  others.  Wher- 
ever ten  men  were  employed  to  do  what  might  have 
been  done  by  nine,  the  contribution  to  the  general 
stock  would  be  less  by  ten  per  cent,  than  it  might 
have  been.  If  ten  men  were  employed  in  making 
chairs,  which  might  have  been  made  by  nine 
had  their  labor  been  better  directed,  the  commu- 
nity would  lose  the  cushions  which  in  that  case 
would  have  been  made  by  the  tenth.  And  what 
holds  good  of  labor  in  respect  of  its  productive 
efficiency  holds  good  of  it  also  in  respect  of  the 
character  of  the  goods  produced.  If  ten  men  were 
employed  in  producing  forty  loaves  when  all  that 
could  be  eaten  was  twenty,  not  only  would  the 
remaining  twenty  be  wasted,  but  the  community 
would  lose  the  butter  which  might  have  been  made 
instead  of  them.  The  importance,  therefore,  to 
the  community  as  a  whole  of  having  every  branch 
of  its  labor  directed  by  those  men,  and  by  those 
men  only,  whose  ability  would  raise  it  to  the  highest 
pitch  of  efficiency,  and  cause  it  to  produce  only 
such  goods  and  such  quantities  of  them  as  would 

79 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

satisfy  from  moment  to  moment  the  needs  and 
tastes  of  the  population,  would,  under  a  regime  of 
socialism,  be  even  more  general  and  immediate 
than  it  is  at  the  present  day;  and  yet  at  the  same 
time,  for  reasons  to  which  we  will  now  return,  the 
difficulty  of  securing  the  requisite  ability  would  be 
increased. 

It  is  impossible  to  illustrate  in  detail  the  situa- 
tion which  would  thus  arise;  for  the  state,  as  sole 
capitalist  and  sole  director  of  labor,  is  an  institu- 
tion which  imaginably  might  take  various  forms; 
and  socialists,  in  this  case  exhibiting  a  commend- 
able prudence,  have  refrained  from  committing 
themselves  to  any  detailed  programme.  The  so- 
cialistic state,  however,  having  to  perform  a  double 
function  —  namely,  that  of  political  governor  and 
universal  director  of  industry — would  necessarily 
be  divided  into  two  distinct  bodies.  One  of  these, 
consisting  of  statesmen  and  legislators,  would,  we 
may  assume,  be  elected  by  the  votes  of  the  people. 
But  the  other,  consisting  of  industrial  experts — the 
inventors,  the  chemists,  the  electricians,  the  naval 
engineers,  the  organizers  of  labor — might  conceiva- 
bly be  in  the  first  or  the  second  of  the  two  following 
positions:  They  might  either  be  left  free,  as  they 
are  under  the  existing  system,  to  do  severally  the 
best  they  can,  according  to  their  own  lights,  in  es- 
timating what  goods  or  services  the  population 
wants,  and  in  satisfying  these  wants  with  such 
increasing  economy  that  new  goods  and  services 
might  be  continually  added  to  the  old.    They  might 

80 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

be  left  free  to  promote  or  dismiss  subordinates,  to 
fill  up  vacancies,  and  take  new  men  into  partner- 
ship, very  much  as  the  heads  of  private  firms  do 
now.  Or  else  they  might  be  liable,  in  greater  or 
less  degree,  to  removal  or  supersession,  and  inter- 
ference with  their  technical  operations,  on  the  part 
of  the  political  body,  whose  members,  while  repre- 
senting the  general  ideas  of  the  community,  would 
presumably  not  be  experts  in  the  direction  of  its 
particular  industries. 

Now  let  us  suppose  first  that  the  official  directors 
of  labor  are  left  practically  free  to  follow  their  own 
devices.  The  situation  which  will  arise  may  be 
illustrated  by  the  following  imaginary  case:  The 
nation,  let  us  say,  requires  two  sister  ships.  They 
are  built  in  different  yards,  u^ider  two  different 
directors,  and  a  thousand  laborei-s  are  employed  in 
the  construction  of  each ;  but  while  the  laborers  who 
work  under  one  director  take  a  year  to  complete 
their  task,  those  who  work  under  the  other  complete 
theirs  within  ten  months.  This  would  mean  for  the 
community  that,  through  the  inferiority  of  the  for- 
mer of  these  two  officials,  two  months'  labor  of  the 
national  shipwrights  had  been  lost;  and  the  public 
interest  w^ould  require  that  the  industrial  regiment 
commanded  by  him  should  as  quickly  as  possible 
pass  out  of  his  control  into  that  of  an  official  who 
could  render  it  more  efficient  than  he.  And  under 
the  existing  system  this,  as  we  have  seen  already, 
is  precisely  what  sooner  or  later  would  be  brought 
about  automatically.     The  inefficient  director,  in 

8i 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMIXATIOX    OF   SOCIALISM 

proportion  to  his  relative  inefficiency,  loses  his 
customers,  and  can  direct  labor  no  longer,  or  is 
obliged  to  direct  it  on  a  very  much  reduced  scale. 
But  if  each  director  of  labor  owed,  as  he  would 
do  under  socialism,  his  means  of  directing  it,  not  to 
the  results  of  his  individual  efficiency,  but  to  a  single 
common  source — namely,  to  the  collective  capital 
of  the  country  or  the  forcible  authority  of  the  law 
— there  is  nothing  in  the  fact  that  one  constructor 
of  ships  wastes  labor  in  constructing  them  which 
another  constructor  would  have  saved,  to  prevent 
him  from  continuing  in  his  post,  or  even  to  insure 
that  he  will  vacate  it  in  favor  of  an  abler  man, 
whether  an  official  rival  or  otherwise,  as  soon  as 
such  a  man  is  available. 

There  is  also  this  further  fact  to  be  noted.  Al- 
though we  are  assuming  that  the  socialistic  direc- 
tors of  labor  will  exert  their  talents  to  the  utmost 
without  requiring  the  stimulus  of  a  proportionate 
reward  in  money,  we  must  necessarily  assume  that 
they  will  value  their  posts  for  some  reason  or  other 
just  as  much  as  they  would  do  were  the  largest 
emoluments  attached  to  them.  Consequently  we 
may,  condescending  to  vulgar  language,  say,  as  a 
certainty,  that  they  will  do  their  very  best  to  stick 
to  them.  All  these  official  persons,  as  contrasted 
with  the  laboring  public,  will  occupy  positions  of 
similar  and  desirable  privilege;  and  while  their 
latent  rivalry  among  themselves  will  be  hampered 
in  the  manner  just  indicated,  they  will  none  of 
them  be  inclined  to  welcome  any  further  rivalry 

3? 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

from  without.  If  the  least  efficient  of  our  two 
naval  constructors  could  not  be  forced  by  the  fact 
of  his  relative  inefficiency  to  hand  over  all  or  any 
portion  of  his  authority  to  the  other,  and  would 
certainly  not  be  likely  to  do  so  of  his  own  free  will, 
it  is  still  less  likely  that  either  would  be  willing  to 
make  such  a  sacrifice  in  favor  of  a  man  outside 
the  privileged  ranks,  who  desired  an  opportunity 
of  demonstrating  his  practical  superiority  to  both. 

Under  a  system,  in  short,  like  that  which  we  are 
now  contemplating,  the  ability  of  the  ablest  direc- 
tors might,  in  each  branch  of  industry,  raise  the 
efficiency  of  the  labor  directed  by  themselves  to  as 
high  a  pitch  as  that  to  which  it  could  be  raised  by 
the  competition  of  to-day.  But  the  successes  of 
the  ablest  men  would  have  no  tendency  to  self- 
extension.  The  ablest  men  would  do  better  than 
the  less  able,  but  would  have  no  tendency  to  dis- 
place them ;  and  the  ablest  and  the  least  able  mem- 
bers of  the  industrial  oligarchy  alike  would  in- 
stinctively oppose,  and  would  also  be  in  a  position 
to  check,  the  practical  development  of  any  compe- 
tition from  without. 

That  this  is  no  fanciful  estimate  can  be  shown  by 
an  appeal  to  facts.  We  may  take  as  an  example 
the  case  of  the  British  post-office.  The  inefficient 
transmission  of  letters  some  twenty  years  ago  in 
London  provoked  an  effort  to  supplement  it  by  a 
service  of  private  messengers.  The  post-office  au- 
thorities were  instantly  up  in  arms,  ready  to  nip 
this  enterprise  in  the  bud,  and  forcibly  prevent  any 

83 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

other  human  being  from  doing  what  they  were 
still,  to  all  appearance,  determined  not  to  do  them- 
selves. Then,  as  a  grudging  concession,  permis- 
sion to  transmit  letters  with  a  promptitude  which 
the  post-office  still  declined  to  emulate  w^as  ac- 
corded to  a  company  on  condition  that  for  each 
letter  carried  the  post-office  should  be  paid  as  it 
would  have  been  had  it  carried  the  letter  itself ;  and 
thus  there  was  established  at  last  the  institution  of 
the  Boy  Messengers. 

Similar  examples  are  afforded  by  the  conduct  of 
the  state  in  France,  where  the  manufacture  of  to- 
bacco and  matches  are  both  of  them  state  monop- 
olies. To  say  that  the  tobacco  produced  by  the 
French  state  is  unsmokable,  and  that  the  matches 
produced  by  it  will  not  light  a  candle,  would  no 
doubt  be  an  exaggeration;  but  they  are  both  in- 
ferior to  the  products  which  private  enterprise 
could,  if  left  to  itself,  produce  at  the  same  price. 
And  private  enterprise  is,  indeed,  not  wholly  sup- 
pressed. Excellent  tobacco  and  matches,  both  of 
private  manufacture,  are  allowed  to  be  sold  in 
France;  but  the  producers  of  both  are  artificially 
handicapped  by  having  to  pay  to  the  state,  on 
every  box  or  every  pound  sold,  either  the  whole  or 
part  of  the  profit  which  the  state  itself  would  have 
made  by  selling  an  equal  quantity  of  its  own  in- 
ferior articles. 

The  very  fact,  indeed,  that  the  state,  as  a  pro- 
ducer, or  a  renderer  of  public  services,  such  as 
letter-carrying,  has  thus  to  protect  itself  against 

84 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

the  competition  of  private  enterprise,  is  sufficient 
evidence  of  the  difficulties  which  a  state  organiza- 
tion encounters  in  securing  industrial  ability  which 
shall  be  constantly  of  the  highest  kind,  and  also 
of  its  inevitable  tendency  to  hamper,  if  not  to  sti- 
fle, the  development  and  the  practical  activity  of 
superior  ability  elsewhere.  And  if  these  difficul- 
ties and  this  tendency  are  appreciable  in  state- 
directed  industries  now,  when  the  area  of  direction 
is  small  and  strictly  limited,  the  reader  may  easily 
imagine  how  incalculably  more  formidable  they 
would  become  if  extended,  as  socialism  would  ex- 
tend them,  to  the  activities  of  the  entire  commu- 
nity. 

We  have  thus  far  been  considering  the  position 
of  the  directors  of  socialized  industry  on  the  as- 
sumption that  they  would  be  free  to  follow  the 
dictates  of  their  own  several  intelligences,  without 
any  technical  interference  from  officials  of  any 
other  kind.  Let  us  now  consider  the  alternative 
which,  in  any  socialistic  society,  would  most  closely 
coincide  with  fact.  This  is  the  assumption  that 
the  official  directors  of  labor  would  not  be  technical 
autocrats,  but  would  be  subject  to  the  control  of 
their  brother  officials,  the  statesmen,  who  repre- 
sented the  great  mass  of  the  people. 

Now  no  doubt  the  intervention  of  a  body  of  this 
kind  might  obviate  some  of  the  difficulties  on 
which  we  have  just  been  dwelling.  It  might  lead 
to  the  removal  of  some  directors  of  labor  who  were 
not  only  relatively  inefficient,  but  were  positively 

7  '  85 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

and  notoriously  mischievous;  but  it  would  intro- 
duce difficulties  greater  than  those  it  obviated. 
For  while  the  industrial  officials  would,  in  exact 
proportion  to  their  efficiency,  embody  the  special 
expertness  peculiar  to  a  gifted  few,  the  political 
officials,  in  proportion  as  they  represented  their 
electorate,  would  embody  the  preponderating  opin- 
ions and  the  general  intelligence  of  the  many.  The 
poHtical  officials,  therefore,  could,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  never  represent  any  ideas  or 
condition  of  knowledge  which  appreciably  tran- 
scended or  conflicted  with  those  of  the  least  intelli- 
gent ;  and  the  logical  result  would  be  that  no  indus- 
trial improvements  could  in  a  socialistic  community 
be  initiated  by  the  highest  intelligence,  if  they  went 
beyond  what  could  be  apprehended  and  consciously 
approved  of  by  the  lowest. 

And  here  again,  though  our  estimate  is  only  gen- 
eral and  speculative — for  it  deals  with  a  state  of 
things  which  at  present  has  no  existence — we  can 
turn  to  historical  facts  for  illustrations  of  its  sub- 
stantial truth.  For  example,  if  in  the  days  of 
Columbus  all  the  capital  of  Europe  and  the  con- 
trol of  its  entire  labor  had  been  vested  in  a  govern- 
ment which  represented  the  all  but  universal  opin- 
ion of  all  the  western  nations,  the  discovery  of 
America  would  have  obviously  been  beyond  the 
limits  of  possibility.  It  was  rendered  possible  only 
because  Columbus  secured  two  patrons  who,  re- 
sembling in  this  respect  far-seeing  investors  of  to- 
day, dared  to  be  original,  and  provided  him  with 

86 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

the  necessary  ships  and  control  over  the  necessary 
labor.  Or  let  us  take  the  case  of  the  iron  industry 
of  the  modern  world.  This  industry,  in  its  vast 
modern  developments,  depends  entirely  on  the 
discovery  made  in  England  of  a  method  by  which 
iron  might  be  smelted  with  coal  in  place  of  wood. 
The  completed  discovery  was  due  to  a  succession 
of  solitary  men,  beginning  with  Dud  Dudley  in  the 
reign  of  James  I.,  and  ending  a  century  later  with 
Darby  of  Coalbrookdale.  Practically  these  heroic 
men  had  all  their  contemporaries  against  them. 
Public  opinion  attacked  them  through  private 
persecution  and  violence.  The  apathy  and  vacilla- 
tion of  governments  left  them  without  defence; 
and  had  governments  then  represented  public  opin- 
ion completely,  and  had  also  controlled  all  labor 
and  capital,  the  discovery  in  question,  w^hich  was 
retarded  for  three  generations,  would  in  all  proba- 
bility have  never  been  made  at  all.  Arkwright's 
experience  with  regard  to  his  spinning-frame  was 
similar.  His  epoch-making  invention  was  in  dan- 
ger of  being  altogether  lost,  because  the  general 
opinion  of  the  capitalists  of  his  day  was  against  it ; 
and  if  all  capital  had  been  vested  in  a  representa- 
tive state,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  far-seeing  indi- 
viduals who  eventually  came  to  his  assistance,  its 
loss  would  have  been  almost  certain.  The  success- 
ful development  of  the  automobile  did  not  take 
place  till  yesterday — and  why?  A  steam-driven 
vehicle  ran  in  Cornwall  before  the  end  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century;    but  the  state  and  public  opinion 

87 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

both  condemned  it  as  dangerous;  and  all  further 
progress  in  the  matter  was  checked  for  more  than 
twenty  years.  Then  again  private  enterprise  as- 
serted itself,  but  only  to  suffer  precisely  the  same 
fate.  Steam-driven  omnibuses  plied  between  Pad- 
dington  and  Westminster.  Steam-driven  stage- 
coaches plied  on  the  Bath  road.  But  the  state  and 
public  opinion  were  again  in  obstinate  opposition; 
these  vehicles  were  crushed  out  of  existence  by  the 
imposition  of  monstrous  tolls;  and  progress  was 
checked  a  second  time  and  for  a  longer  period  still. 
An  instance  yet  more  modern  is  that  supplied  by 
the  electric  lighting  of  London.  The  electric  light- 
ing of  London  was  retarded  for  ten  years  solely  by 
the  attitude  which  the  state  assumed  towards  pri- 
vate enterprise. 

It  is  needless  to  multiply  illustrations  of  this 
kind  further;  for  my  object  is  not  to  show  that 
the  state,  as  it  exists  at  present,  is  necessarily 
inimical  to  private  enterprise  as  a  w^hole.  It  is 
not,  for  it  has  not  the  power  to  be.  But  the  fact 
that  even  now,  when  its  powers  are  so  strictly 
limited  and  its  points  of  direct  contact  with  indus- 
trial enterprise  are  so  iew,  tendencies  of  the  kind 
develop  themselves  with  such  marked  practical 
consequences  is  enough  to  show  the  reality  and 
magnitude  of  the  evils  which  would  ensue  if  a 
body,  which  reflected  on  the  one  hand  the  opinions 
of  the  average  many,  and  on  the  other  the  indi- 
vidual ability  of  a  few"  specially  privileged  and 
pledged  to  their  own  methods,  were  the  sole  con- 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

troller  of  all  manual  labor  whatsoever,  the  virtual 
owner  of  all  the  implements  which  exist  at  present, 
the  sole  determiner  of  the  forms  w^hich  such  imple- 
ments shall  assume  in  the  future,  and  also  of  the 
kinds  and  quantities  of  the  consumable  goods  which 
the  implements  and  the  laborers  together  shall  from 
day  to  day  produce. 

But  the  nature  scope  of  the  effects  which  would 
be  incident  to  any  general  absorption,  such  as  that 
contemplated  by  socialists,  of  productive  enterprise 
by  the  state,  will  be  yet  more  clearly  seen  if  we 
turn  to  a  kind  of  production  on  w^hich  I  have 
dwelt  already,  as  affording  the  simplest  and  most 
luminous  example  possible  of  the  respective  parts 
played  in  the  modern  world  by  ordinary  manual 
labor  and  the  exceptional  ability  which  directs  it. 
This  is  the  case  of  books,  or  of  other  printed  publi- 
cations. Many  years  ago  the  English  radical, 
Charles  Bradlaugh,  urged  in  a  debate  with  a  then 
prominent  socialist  that  under  socialism  no  literary 
expression  of  free  thought  would  be  practicable; 
and  I  cannot  do  more  than  accentuate  his  lucid  and 
unanswerable  arguments.  The  state,  being  con- 
troller of  all  the  implements  of  production,  a  private 
press  would  be  as  illegal  as  the  dies  used  by  a  forger. 
Nobody  could  issue  a  book,  a  newspaper,  or  even  a 
leaflet,  unless  the  use  of  a  state  press  were  allowed 
him  by  the  state  authorities,  together  with  the 
disposal  of  the  labor  of  the  requisite  number  of 
compositors.  Now  it  is  clear  that  the  state  could 
not  bind  itself  to  put  presses  and  compositors  at 

89 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

the  service  of  every  one  of  its  citizens  who  was 
anxious  to  see  himself  in  print.  There  would  have 
to  be  selection  and  rejection  of  some  drastic  kind. 
The  state  would  have  to  act  as  universal  publisher's 
reader.  What  would  happen  under  these  circum- 
stances to  purely  imaginative  literature  w^e  need 
not  here  inquire;  but  when  the  question  was  one 
of  expressing  controversial  opinions  as  to  science, 
religion,  morals,  and  especially  social  politics,  what 
would  happen  is  evident.  The  state  would  be  able 
to  refuse,  and  it  could  not  do  otherwise  than  refuse, 
to  print  anything  which  expressed  opinions  out 
of  harmony  with  those  which  were  predominant 
among  its  own  members.  In  so  far  as  these  mem- 
bers reflected  the  opinions  of  the  majority,  they 
w^ould  never  publish  an  attack  on  errors  which 
they  themselves  accepted  as  vital  truths.  In  so  far 
as  they  owed  their  positions  to  certain  real  or  sup- 
posed superiorities  they  would  never  publish  any 
criticism  of  their  own  methods  by  men  whom  they 
would  necessarily  regard  as  mischievous  and  mis- 
taken inferiors.  In  short,  whether  the  state  acted 
in  this  matter  as  the  ultra-superior  person,  or  as 
the  ultra-popular  person,  the  result  would  be  just 
the  same.  The  focalized  prejudices  of  the  major- 
ity, or  the  privileged  self-confidence  of  a  certain 
select  minority,  would  deprive  independent  thought 
in  any  other  quarter  of  any  means  of  expressing 
itself  either  by  book  or  journal,  and  by  thus  depriv- 
ing it  of  its  voice  would  place  it  at  an  artificial 
disadvantage  more  effectual  as  a  means  of  repres- 

90 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

sion  than  the  dungeons  of  the  Inquisition  itself. 
It  would  be  checked  as  completely  as  the  higher 
criticism  of  the  Bible  would  have  been  if  the  only- 
printer  in  the  whole  world  were  the  Pope  and  the 
only  publishing  business  were  managed  by  the 
College  of  Cardinals. 

And  what,  under  a  regime  of  socialism,  would 
be  true  of  human  thought,  as  seeking  to  embody 
itself  in  printed  books  or  newspapers,  would  be 
equally  true  of  it  as  applied  to  the  methods  of 
industry,  and  seeking  to  em.body  itself  in  multi- 
plied or  improved  commodities. 

Such,  then,  are  the  disadvantages  which  social- 
ism, as  contrasted  with  the  existing  system,  would 
introduce  in  connection  with  the  problem  of  how 
to  detect,  and  how,  having  detected  it,  to  invest 
with  suitable  powers,  the  men  whose  ability  is,  at 
any  given  moment,  calculated  to  raise  labor  to  the 
highest  pitch  of  productiveness — how  to  give  power 
to  these,  and  to  take  it  away  from  others  in  exact 
proportion  as  their  talents,  as  exhibited  in  its  prac- 
tical results,  fall  short  of  the  maximum  which  is  at 
the  time  obtainable. 

This  problem,  as  we  have  seen  already,  the  exist- 
ing system  solves  by  its  machinery  of  private  com- 
petition, and  of  independent  capitals,  which  auto- 
matically increase  the  powers  of  the  ablest  directors 
of  labor,  and  concurrently  decrease  or  extinguish 
those  of  the  less  able.  Socialism,  with  its  collective 
capital,  and  its  able  men  reduced  or  elevated  to  the 
rank  of  state  officials,  while  not  obviating,  but  on 

91 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF  SOCIALISM 

the  contrary  emphasizing  the  necessity  for  placing 
labor  under  the  highest  directive  ability,  or,  in  other 
words,  the  necessity  for  competition  among  able 
men,  would  dislocate  the  only  machinery  by  which 
such  competition  can  be  made  effective;  and,  if  it 
did  not  destroy  the  efficiency  of  the  highest  ability 
altogether,  would  reduce  this  to  a  minimum,  and 
confine  it  within  the  narrowest  limits. 

In  this  chapter,  however,  we  have  been  dealing 
with  the  machinery  only.  We  have  been  assuming 
the  unabated  activity  of  the  powers  by  which  the 
machinery  is  to  be  driven.  That  is  to  say,  we  have 
been  assuming  that  every  man  who  possesses,  or 
imagines  himself  to  possess,  any  exceptional  gift  for 
directing  labor — whether  as  an  inventor,  a  man  of 
science,  an  organizer,  or  in  any  other  capacity — 
would  be  no  less  eager,  under  the  circumstances 
with  which  socialism  would  surround  him,  to  de- 
velop and  exert  his  faculties  than  he  is  at  the  pres- 
ent day.  We  will  now  pass  on  to  the  question  of 
how  far  this  assumption  is  correct.  The  question 
of  machinery  is  secondary.  It  is  a  question  of 
detail  only;  for  if  there  is  no  power  in  the  back- 
ground by  which  the  machinery  may  be  driven,  it 
will  not  make  much  difference  in  the  result  whether 
the  machinery  be  bad  or  good. 

And  here  once  more  we  shall  find  that  the  so- 
cialists of  to-day  agree  with  us;  and  in  passing  on 
to  the  question  now  before  us,  we  shall  be  quitting 
a  region  of  speculations  which  can  be  only  of  a  gen- 
eral kind   (for  they  refer  to  social  arrangements 

93 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

whose  details  are  not  definitely  specified),  and  we 
shall  find  ourselves  confronted  by  a  variety  of  ideas 
and  principles  which,  however  confused  they  may 
be  in  the  minds  of  those  who  enunciate  them,  we 
shall  have  no  difficulty  ourselves  in  reducing  to 
logical  order. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE    ULTIMATE    DIFFICULTY.       SPECULATIVE 
ATTEMPTS    TO     MINIMIZE     IT 

Mr.  Sidney  Webb,  and  most  modern  socialists  of  the  higher 
kind,  recognize  that  this  problem  of  motive  underlies  all  others. 

They  approach  it  indirectly  by  sociological  arguments  bor- 
rowed from  other  philosophers,  and  directly  by  a  psychology 
peculiar  to  themselves. 

The  sociological  arguments  by  which  socialists  seek  to  mini- 
mize the  claims  of  the  able  man. 

These  founded  on  a  specific  confusion  of  thought,  which 
vitiated  the  evolutionary  sociology  of  that  second  half  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  Illustrations  from  Herbert  Spencer,  Ma- 
caulay,  Mr.  Kidd,  and  recent  socialists. 

The  confusion  in  question  a  confusion  between  speculative 
truth  and  practical. 

The  individual  importance  of  the  able  man,  tintouched  by 
the  speculative  conclusions  of  the  sociological  evolutionists, 
as  may  be  seen  by  the  examples  adduced  in  a  contrary  sense 
by  Herbert  Spencer.  This  is  partially  perceived  by  Spencer 
himself.     Illustrations  from  his  works. 

Ludicrous  attempts,  on  the  part  of  socialistic  writers,  to 
apply  the  speculative  generalizations  of  sociology  to  the  prac- 
tical position  of  individiial  men. 

The  climax  of  absiirdity  reached  by  Mr.  Sidney  Webb. 

When  socialism,  says  Mr.  Sidney  Webb,  shall 
have  abolished  all  other  monopolies,  there  will  still 
remain  to  be  dealt  with  the  most  formidable  mo- 

94 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

nopoly  of  all — namely,  "the  natural  monopoly  of 
business  ability,"  or  "the  special  ability  and  energy 
with  which  some  persons  are  born."  The  services 
of  these  monopolists,  he  sees  and  fully  admits, 
would  be  as  essential  to  a  socialistic  as  they  are 
to  any  other  community  which  desires  to  prosper 
according  to  modern  standards.  He  sees  and  ad- 
mits also  that  these  exceptional  men  will  not  con- 
tinuously exert  or  even  develop  their  talents  unless 
society  can  supply  them  with  some  adequate  mo- 
tive or  stimulus.  Accordingly,  since  he  maintains 
that  no  scheme  of  society  would  be  socialistic  in 
any  practical  sense  which  did  not  completely,  or 
at  least  approximately,  eliminate  the  motive  mainly 
operative  among  such  men  at  present — namely, 
that  supplied  by  the  possibility  of  exceptional 
economic  gain — he  fairly  faces  the  fact  that  some 
motive  of  a  different  kind  will  have  to  be  discovered 
by  socialists  which  shall  take  the  place  of  this. 

I  mention  Mr.  Webb  in  particular  merely  because 
he  represents  the  views  which  all  intellectual  so- 
cialists are  coming  to  hold  likewise.  This  specific 
problem  of  how  to  provide  the  natural  monopolists 
of  business  ability  with  all  adequate  motive  to  de- 
velop and  exercise  their  talents  is  engaging  more 
and  more  the  attention  of  the  higher  socialistic 
thinkers;  and  if  we  take  together  the  passages  in 
their  writings  which  deal  with  it,  it  has  by  this 
time  a  voluminous  literature  of  its  own. 

We  shall  find  that  the  arguments  brought  for- 
ward by  them  in  this  connection  divide  themselves 

95 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

broadly  into  two  classes,  one  of  which  deals  with 
the  problem  of  motive  directly,  while  the  other 
class  aims  at  preparing  the  way  to  its  solution  by 
showing  in  advance  that  its  difficulties  are  far  less 
formidable  than  they  appear  to  be.  Without  in- 
sisting on  the  manner  in  which  they  are  urged  by 
individual  writers,  we  will  take  these  two  classes 
of  argument  in  the  logical  order  which  they  assume 
when  we  consider  their  general  character. 

These  preparatory  arguments,  with  which  we  will 
accordingly  begin,  while  admitting  that  some  men 
are  undoubtedly  more  able  than  others,  aim  at 
showing  that  the  superiority  of  such  men  to  their 
fellows  is  not  so  great  as  it  seems  to  be,  and  that 
any  claims  made  by  them  to  exceptional  reward 
on  account  of  it  consequently  tend  to  reduce  them- 
selves to  very  modest  proportions. 

These  arguments  possess  a  peculiar  interest  ow- 
ing to  the  fact  that  they  have  not  originated  with 
socialistic  thinkers  at  all,  but  have  been  drawn  by 
them  from  the  evolutionary  philosophy  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  generally,  in  so  far  as  it  was  applied 
to  historical  and  sociological  questions.  The  domi- 
nant idea  which  distinguished  this  school  of  thought 
was  the  insignificance  of  the  individual  as  com- 
pared with  society  past  and  present.  Thus  Herbert 
Spencer,  who  was  its  most  systematic  exponent, 
opens  his  work  on  the  Study  of  Sociology  with  an 
elaborate  attack  on  what  he  calls  "The  Great  Man 
Theory,"  according  to  which  the  explanation  of 
the  main  events  of  history  is  to  be  sought  in  the 

96 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

influence  of  exceptional  or  great  men — the  men 
who,  in  vulgar  language,  are  spoken  of  as  "  histor- 
ical characters."  Such  an  explanation,  said  Spen- 
cer, is  no  explanation  at  all.  Great  men,  however 
great,  are  not  isolated  phenomena.  Whatever  they 
may  do  as  the  "proximate  initiators"  of  change, 
they  themselves  "  have  their  chief  cause  in  the  gen- 
erations they  have  descended  from,"  and  depend 
for  the  influence  which  is  commonly  attributed  to 
themselves,  on  "the  multitudinous  conditions"  of 
the  generation  to  which  they  belong.  Thus  La- 
place, he  says,  could  not  have  got  far  with  his 
calculations  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  line  of  math- 
ematicians who  went  before  him.  Csesar  could  not 
have  got  very  far  with  his  conquests  if  a  great 
military  organization  had  not  been  ready  to  his 
hand;  nor  could  vShakespeare  have  written  his 
dramas  if  he  had  not  lived  in  a  country  already 
enriched  with  traditions  and  a  highly  developed 
language. 

But  though  it  was  Herbert  Spencer  who  invested 
these  arguments  with  their  most  systematic  form, 
and  gave  them  their  definite  place  in  the  theory  of 
evolution  as  a  whole,  they  were  widely  diffused 
already  among  his  immediate  predecessors,  as  we 
may  see  by  the  following  passage  taken  from  an 
unlikely  quarter.  "It  is,"  says  Macaulay,  in  his 
Essay  on  Dryden,  anticipating  the  exact  phrase- 
ology of  Spencer,  "the  age  that  makes  the  man, 
not  the  man  that  makes  the  age.  .  .  .  The  inequali- 
ties of  the  intellect,  like  the  inequalities  of  the  sur- 

97 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

face  of  the  globe,  bear  so  small  a  proportion  to  the 
mass,  that  in  calculating  its  great  revolutions  they 
may  safely  be  neglected."  And  Macaulay  is  merely 
expressing  a  doctrine  distinctive  of  his  time — a  doc- 
trine which,  to  take  one  further  example,  dominated 
in  a  notable  way  the  entire  thought  of  Buckle. 
This  doctrine  which,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree, 
merges  the  organism  in  its  environment,  or  the 
individual,  however  great,  in  society,  has  been 
seized  on  by  the  more  recent  socialists  just  as  the 
theory  of  Ricardo,  with  regard  to  labor  and  value, 
was  seized  on  by  Karl  Marx,  and  has  been  adapted 
by  them  to  their  own  purposes. 

Thus  Mr.  Bellamy,  whose  book,  Looking  Back- 
ward, descriptive  of  a  socialistic  Utopia,  achieved 
a  circulation  beyond  that  of  the  most  popular 
novels,  declares  that  "nine  hundred  and  ninety- 
nine  parts  out  of  the  thousand  of  the  produce  of 
every  man  are  the  result  of  his  social  inheritance 
and  environment";  and  Mr.  Kidd,  a  socialist  in 
sentiment  if  not  in  definite  theory,  urges  that  the 
comparative  insignificance,  the  comparative  com- 
monness, and  dependence  for  their  efficiency  on 
contemporary  social  circumstances,  of  the  talents 
which  we  are  accustomed  to  associate  with  the 
greatest  inventions  and  discoveries,  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that  some  of  the  most  important  of  these 
have  been  made  by  persons  who,  "working  quite 
independently,  have  arrived  at  like  results  al- 
most simultaneously.  Thus  rival  and  independent 
claims,"   he  proceeds,    "have  been  made  for  the 

98 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

discovery  of  the  differential  calculus,  the  invention 
of  the  steam-engine,  the  methods  of  spectrum  anal- 
ysis, the  telephone,  the  telegraph,  as  well  as  many 
other  discoveries."  Further,  to  these  arguments  a 
yet  more  definite  point  has  been  added  by  the  con- 
tention that,  as  socialistic  writers  put  it,  "inven- 
tions and  discoveries,  when  once  made,  become 
common  property,"  the  mass  of  mankind  being  cut 
off  from  the  use  of  them  only  by  patents  or  other 
artificial  restrictions. 

The  aim  of  socialists  in  pursuing  this  line  of 
reasoning  is  obvious.  It  is  to  demonstrate,  or 
rather  to  suggest,  that  "the  monopolists  of  busi- 
ness ability,"  in  spite  of  their  comparative  rarity 
and  the  importance  of  the  services  performed  by 
them,  are  far  from  being  so  rare  or  so  superior  to 
the  mass  of  their  contemporaries  as  they  seem  to 
be,  that  their  achievements  owe  far  more  than 
appears  on  the  surface  to  the  co-operation  of  the 
average  members  of  society,  and  that  consequently 
a  socialistic  society  could  justly  demand  and  prac- 
tically secure  their  services  on  far  easier  terms  than 
those  which  they  command  at  present. 

And  to  such  a  conclusion  the  principles  of  mod- 
ern evolutionary  sociolog}?",  as  unanimously  inter- 
preted by  the  philosophers  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, may  be  fairly  said  to  lend  the  entire  weight 
of  their  prestige.  Let  us,  then,  consider  more  care- 
fully what  these  principles  are,  with  a  view  to 
understanding  the  true  scope  of  their  significance. 
We  shall  find  that,  although  undoubtedly  true  in 

99 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

themselves,  the  scope  of  their  significance  has  been 
very  imperfectly  understood  by  the  great  thinkers 
to  whose  talents  their  elucidation  has  been  due; 
that  these  thinkers,  in  their  eagerness  to  establish 
a  new  truth,  have  at  the  same  time  introduced  a 
new  confusion;  and  that  it  is  from  the  confusion 
of  a  truth  with  a  falsehood,  rather  than  from  the 
truth  itself,  that  the  socialists  of  to-day  have  been 
here  drawing  their  inspiration. 

The  confusion  in  question  arises  from  a  failure 
to  see  that  sociology  is  concerned  with  two  distinct 
sets  of  phenomena,  or  with  one  set  regarded  from 
two  absolutely  distinct  stand-points.  Thus  it  is 
constantly  said  that  man,  in  the  course  of  ages, 
has  developed  civilized  societies  and  the  various 
arts  of  life— that,  beginning  as  an  animal  only  a 
little  higher  than  the  monkey,  he  gradually  became 
a  builder  of  cities,  a  master  of  the  secrets  of  nature, 
a  philosopher,  a  poet,  a  painter  of  divine  pictures. 
And  from  a  certain  point  of  view  this  language  is 
adequate.  If  what  we  desire  to  do  is  to  estimate, 
as  speculative  philosophers,  the  significance  of  the 
human  race  in  relation  to  the  universe  or  its  Author, 
by  considering  its  origin  on  this  planet,  and  its  sub- 
sequent fortunes  hitherto,  what  interests  us  is  man 
in  the  mass,  or  societies,  and  not  individuals.  But 
if  what  interests  us  in  any  problem  of  practical 
life — such,  for  example,  as  how  to  cure  cancer,  or 
cut  a  navigable  canal  through  a  broad  and  moun- 
tainous isthmus,  or  decorate  a  public  building  with 
a  series  of  great  frescoes,  the  central  point  of  inter- 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

est  is  the  individual  and  not  society.  How  would 
a  mother,  whose  child  was  hovering  between  life 
and  death,  be  comforted  by  the  information  that 
man  was  a  great  physician  ?  How  would  America 
be  helped  in  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal 
by  learning  from  sociologists  that  man  could  re- 
move mountains?  How  could  great  pictures  be 
secured  for  a  public  building  by  information  to  the 
effect  that  the  greatest  of  all  great  artists  depended 
for  their  exceptional  power  on  the  aggregate  of 
conditions  surrounding  them,  when  ten  millions 
of  men  whose  surrounding  conditions  were  similar 
might  be  tried  in  succession  without  one  being 
found  who  rose  in  art  above  the  level  of  vulgar 
mediocrity  ?  It  is  not  that  the  generalizations  of 
the  evolutionary  sociologists  with  regard  to  man 
in  the  mass,  or  societies,  are  untrue  philosophically. 
Philosophically  they  are  of  the  utmost  moment. 
It  is  that  they  have  no  bearing  on  the  problems  of 
contemporary  life,  and  that  they  miss  out  the  one 
factor  by  which  they  are  brought  into  connection 
with  it. 

Let .  us  take,  for  example,  the  way  in  which 
Herbert  Spencer  illustrates  the  general  theorem 
of  the  evolutionary  sociologists  by  the  case  of 
Shakespeare,  and  Shakespeare's  debt  to  his  times. 
"Given  a  Shakespeare,"  he  says,  "and  what  dra- 
mas could  he  have  written  without  the  multitu- 
dinous conditions  of  civilized  life  around  him — 
without  the  various  traditions  which,  descending 
to  him  from  the  past,  gave  wealth  to  his  thought, 

8  ZOI 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

and  without  the  language  which  a  hundred  genera- 
tions had  developed  and  enriched  by  use?"  The 
answer  to  this  question  is  to  be  found  in  the  coun- 
ter-question that  is  provoked  by  it.  Given  the 
conditions  of  civilized  life,  and  the  traditions  of 
England  and  its  language,  as  they  were  under 
Queen  Elizabeth,  how  could  these  have  produced 
the  Shakespearian  dramas  unless  England  had 
possessed  an  individual  citizen  whose  psycho- 
physical organization  was  equal  to  that  of  Shake- 
speare. Similarly,  it  is  true  that  Turner  could  not 
have  painted  his  sunsets  if  multitudinous  atmos- 
pheric conditions  had  not  given  him  sunsets  to 
paint;  but  at  the  same  time  every  one  of  Turner's 
contemporaries  were  surrounded  by  sunsets  of  pre- 
cisely the  same  kind,  and  yet  only  Turner  was 
capable  of  producing  such  masterpieces  as  his  own. 
The  case  of  the  writer  and  the  artist,  indeed,  illus- 
trates with  singular  lucidity  the  fact  which  the 
philosophy  of  the  evolutionary  sociologists  ignore, 
that  the  great  man  does  great  things,  not  in  virtue 
of  conditions  which  he  shares  with  the  dullest  and 
the  feeblest  of  the  men  around  him,  but  in  virtue 
of  the  manner  in  which  his  exceptional  genius 
assimilates  the  data  of  his  environment,  and  gives 
them  back  to  the  world,  recombined,  refashioned, 
and  reinterpreted. 

And  with  regard  to  practical  matters,  and  more 
especially  the  modern  production  of  wealth,  the 
case  is  just  the  same.  No  one  has  illustrated  more 
luminously  than  Herbert  Spencer  himself  the  multi- 

I02 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

tudinous  character  of  the  knowledge  which  modern 
production  necessitates;  and  no  one  has  insisted 
with  more  emphasis  than  he  that  one  of  the  rarest 
faculties  to  be  met  with  among  human  beings  is  the 
faculty,  as  he  expresses  it,  of  "apprehending  assem- 
bled propositions  in  their  totality."  It  would  be 
difficult  to  define  better  in  equally  brief  language 
the  intellectual  aspect  of  that  composite  mental 
equipment  which  distinguishes  from  ordinary  men 
the  monopolists  of  business  ability.  It  is  precisely 
by  apprehending  a  multitude  of  assembled  propo- 
sitions in  their  totality — mathematical,  chemical, 
geological,  geographical,  and  so  forth — by  combin- 
ing them  for  a  definite  purpose,  and  translating 
them  into  a  series  of  orders  which  organized  labor 
can  execute,  that  the  intellect  of  the  able  man  gives 
efficiency  to  the  industrial  processes  of  to-day.  In 
addition,  moreover,  to  his  purely  intellectual  facul- 
ties, he  requires  others  which,  in  their  higher  de- 
velopments, are  no  less  rare  —  namely,  a  quick 
discernment  of  popular  wants  as  they  arise  or  an 
imagination  which  enables  him  to  anticipate  them, 
an  instinctive  insight  into  character  which  enables 
him  to  choose  the  best  men  as  his  subordinates, 
promptitude  to  seize  on  opportunities,  courage 
which  is  the  soul  of  promptitude,  and  finally  a 
driving  energy  by  which  the  whole  of  his  moral  and 
intellectual  mechanism  is  actuated.  As  for  "the 
aggregate  of  conditions  out  of  which  he  has  arisen," 
or  the  aggregate  of  conditions  which  surround  him, 
these  are  common  to  him  and  to  every  one  of  his 

103 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

fellow-countrymen.  They  are  a  landscape  which 
surrounds  them  all.  But  aggregates  of  conditions 
could  no  more  produce  the  results  of  which,  as 
Herbert  Spencer  admits,  the  able  man  is  the  proxi- 
mate cause,  unless  the  able  man  existed  and  could 
be  induced  to  cause  them,  than  a  landscape  could 
be  photographed  without  a  lens  or  a  camera,  or  a 
great  picture  of  it  painted  in  the  absence  of  a  great 
artist. 

Herbert  Spencer,  indeed,  partially  perceives  all 
this  himself.  That  is  to  say,  he  realizes  from  time 
to  time  that  the  causal  importance  of  the  great 
man  varies  according  to  the  nature  of  the  problems 
in  connection  with  which  we  consider  him,  and 
that  while  he  is,  for  purposes  of  general  speculation, 
merely  a  transmitter  of  forces  beyond  and  greater 
than  himself,  he  is  for  practical  purposes  an  ulti- 
mate cause  or  fact.  That  such  is  the  case  is  shown 
in  a  curiously  vivid  way  by  two  references  to  two 
great  men  in  particular,  which  occur  not  far  from 
each  other  in  Spencer's  Study  of  Sociology.  One  is 
a  reference  to  the  last  Napoleon,  the  other  is  a 
reference  to  the  first.  He  refers  to  the  former 
when  he  is  emphasizing  his  main  proposition,  that 
the  importance  of  the  ruler,  considered  as  an  indi- 
vidual, is  small,  and  almost  entirely  merged  in  the 
conditions  of  society  generally.  "  If  you  wish,"  he 
says,  "to  understand  the  phenomena  of  social  evo- 
lution, you  will  not  do  it  should  you  read  yourself 
blind  over  the  biographies  of  all  the  great  rulers  on 
record,  down  to  Frederick  the  greedy  and  Napoleon 

104 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

the  treacherous."  When  he  makes  his  reference  to 
this  Napoleon's  ancestor,  he  is  pausing  for  a  mo- 
ment in  the  course  of  his  philosophical  argtiment 
in  order  to  indulge  in  a  parenthetical  denunciation 
of  war.  Of  the  insane  folly  of  war,  he  says,  we  can 
have  no  better  example  than  that  provided  by  Eu- 
rope at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
when  hardly  a  country  was  free  from  "slaughter, 
suffering,  and  devastation."  For  what,  he  goes  on 
to  ask,  was  the  cause  of  such  wide-spread  horrors? 
Simply,  he  answers,  the  presence  of  one  abnormal 
individual,  "in  whom  the  instincts  of  the  savage 
were  scarcely  at  all  qualified  by  what  we  call  moral 
sentiments";  and  "all  this  slaughter,  suffering, 
and  devastation"  were,  he  says,  "gone  through 
because  one  man  had  a  restless  desire  to  be  despot 
over  all  men."  Here  we  see  how  Spencer,  as  a 
matter  of  common-sense,  instinctively  assigns  to 
great  men  absolutely  contrasted  positions,  accord- 
ing to  the  point  of  view  from  which  he  is  himself 
regarding  them — that  of  the  speculative  thinker 
and  that  of  the  practical  politician,  and  of  this  fact 
we  will  take  one  example  more.  Of  his  doctrine 
that  the  great  man  is  merely  a  "proximate  initia- 
tor," and  in  no  true  sense  the  cause  of  what  he 
seems  to  produce  or  do,  he  gives  us  an  elaborate 
illustration  taken  from  modern  industry — that  is 
to  say,  the  invention  of  the  Times  printing-press. 
This  wonderful  piece  of  mechanism  would,  he  says, 
have  been  wholly  impossible  if  it  had  not  been  for 
a  series  of  discoveries  and  inventions  that  had  gone 

105 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

before  it ;  and  having  specified  a  multitude  of  these, 
winds  up  with  a  repetition  of  his  moral  that  of  each 
invention  individually  the  true  cause  is  not  the  so- 
called  inventor,  but  "the  aggregate  of  conditions 
out  of  which  he  has  arisen."  But  when  elsewhere, 
in  his  treatise  on  Social  Statics,  Spencer  is  dealing 
with  the  existing  laws  of  England,  he  violently 
attacks  these,  in  so  far  as  they  relate  to  patents, 
because  they  fail,  he  says,  to  recognize  as  absolute 
a  man's  "property  in  his  own  ideas,"  or,  in  other 
words,  "  his  inventions,  which  he  has  wrought,  as  it 
were,  out  of  the  very  substance  of  his  own  mind." 
Thus  Spencer  himself,  at  times,  as  these  passages 
clearly  show,  sees  that  w^hile  great  men,  when  con- 
sidered philosophically,  do  little  of  what  they  ap- 
pear to  do,  they  must  for  practical  purposes  be 
dealt  with  as  though  they  did  all;  though  he  no- 
where recognizes  this  distinction  formally,  or  ac- 
cords it  a  definite  place  in  his  general  sociological 
system.^ 

1  I  first  made  this  criticism  of  Spencer  in  my  work,  Aristocracy 
and  Evolution.  On  that  occasion  Mr.  Spencer  wrote  to  me, 
complaining  with  much  vehemence  that  I  had  misrepresented 
him;  and  he  repeated  the  substance  of  his  letter  in  a  subse- 
quent published  essay.  My  criticism  dealt,  and  could  have 
dealt  only,  not  with  what  he  meant,  but  what  he  said;  and 
certainly  in  his  language — and,  as  I  think,  in  his  own  mind — 
there  was  a  constant  confusion  between  the  two  truths  in  ques- 
tion. Apart,  however,  from  what  he  considered  to  be  my  own 
misrepresentation  of  himself,  he  declared  that  he  entirely 
agreed  with  me;  and  that  "great  men"  must,  for  practical  pur- 
poses, be  regarded  as  the  true  causes  of  such  changes  as  they 
initiate. 

io6 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

The  absurdity  of  confounding  speculative  sociol- 
ogy with  practical  is  shown  with  equal  clearness 
by  Macaulay  in  the  passage  that  was  just  now 
quoted  from  him.  "The  inequalities  of  the  intel- 
lect," he  says,  "like  the  inequalities  of  the  surface 
of  the  globe,  bear  so  small  a  proportion  to  the 
mass"  that  the  sociologist  may  neglect  the  one  just 
as  safely  as  the  astronomer  neglects  the  other. 
Now  this  may  be  quite  true  if  our  interest  in  human 
events  is  that  of  social  astronomers  who  are  watch- 
ing them  from  another  planet.  But  because  the 
inequalities  of  the  earth  are  nothing  to  the  astrono- 
mer, it  does  not  follow  that  they  are  nothing  to  the 
engineer  and  the  geographer.  The  Alps  for  the . 
astronomer  may  be  an  infinitesimal  and  negligible 
excrescence;  but  they  were  not  this  to  Hannibal 
or  the  makers  of  the  Mont  Cenis  tunnel.  What  to 
the  astronomer  are  all  the  dikes  of  Holland  ?  But 
they  are  everything  to  the  Dutch  between  a  dead 
nation  and  a  living  one.  And  the  same  thing  holds 
good  of  the  inequalities  of  the  human  intellect. 
For  the  social  astronomer  they  are  nothing.  For 
the  practical  man  they  are  everything. 

It  is  in  the  astonishing  confusion  between  specu- 
lative and  practical  truth  which  characterized  the 
evolutionary  sociologists  of  the  nineteenth  century 
that  the  socialists  of  to-day  are  seeking  for  a  new 
support  to  their  system.  And  now  let  us  consider 
the  way  in  which  they  themselves  have  improved 
the  occasion,  and  apply  the  moral  which  they  have 
drawn   from   such  a  singularly  deceptive   source. 

107 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMLNATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

The  three  points  which  they  aim  at  emphasizing  are 
products  which  the  able  man  can  really  claim  as 
his  own,  the  consequent  diminution  of  his  claims 
to  any  exceptional  reward  on  account  of  them, 
and  the  fact  that  even  the  highest  ability,  how- 
ever rare  it  may  be,  is  very  much  commoner  than 
it  seems  to  be,  and  will,  for  this  reason  in  addition 
to  those  just  mentioned,  be  obtainable  in  the  future 
at  a  very  much  reduced  price. 

Of  these  three  points  the  last  is  the  most  definite. 
Let  us  take  it  first ;  and  let  us  take  it  as  stated,  not 
by  a  professed  socialist,  but  by  an  independent  and 
highly  educated  thinker  such  as  Mr.  Kidd.  Mr. 
Kidd's  argument  is,  as  we  have  seen  already,  that 
the  comparative  commonness  of  ability  of  the  high- 
est kind  is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  of  the  greatest 
inventions  and  discoveries,  a  number  have  been 
notoriously  made  at  almost  the  same  time  by  a 
number  of  thinkers  who  have  all  worked  in  isola- 
tion. This  argument  would  not  be  w^orth  discuss- 
ing if  it  were  not  used  so  constantly  by  a  variety  of 
serious  writers.  The  fact  on  which  it  bases  itself 
is  no  doubt  true  enough;  but  what  is  the  utmost 
that  it  proves?  That  more  men  than  one  should 
reach  at  the  same  time  the  same  discovery  inde- 
pendently is  precisely  what  we  should  be  led  to 
expect,  when  we  consider  what  the  character  of 
scientific  discovery  is.  The  facts  of  nature  which 
form  its  subject-matter  are  in  themselves  as  inde- 
pendent of  the  men  who  discover  them  as  an  Alpine 
peak  is  of  the  men  who  attempt  to  climb  it.     They 

jo8 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF  SOCIALISM 

are,  indeed,  precisely  analogous  to  such  a  peak 
which  all  discoverers  are  attempting  to  scale  at 
once;  and  the  fact  that  three  men  make  at  once 
the  same  discovery  does  no  more  to  show  that  it 
could  have  been  made  by  the  majority  of  their 
fellow- workers,  and  that  it  was  in  reality  made  not 
by  themselves  but  by  their  generation,  than  the 
fact  that  three  men  of  exceptional  nerve  and  en- 
durance meet  at  last  on  some  previously  virgin 
summit  proves  the  feat  to  have  been  accomplished 
less  by  these  men  themselves  than  by  the  mass  of 
tourists  who  thronged  the  hotel  below  and  whose 
climbing  exploits  were  limited  to  an  ascent  by  the 
Rigi  Railway, 

Other  writers,  however,  try  to  reach  Mr.  Kidd's 
conclusion  by  a  somewhat  different  route.  Whether 
the  great  man  is  or  is  not  a  more  common  phenom- 
enon than  he  seems  to  be,  they  maintain  that  his 
conquests  in  the  realms  of  invention  and  discovery, 
when  once  made,  really  "become  common  proper- 
ty," of  which  all  men  could  take  advantage  if  it  were 
not  for  artificial  monopolies.  All  men,  therefore, 
though  not  equal  as  discoverers,  are  practically 
equalized  by  whatever  the  discoverers  accomplish. 
Now  of  the  simpler  inventions  and  discoveries, 
such  as  that  of  fire  for  example,  this  is  perfectly 
true;  but  it  is  true  of  these  only.  As  inventions 
and  discoveries  grow  more  and  more  complex,  they 
no  more  become  common  property,  as  soon  as  cer- 
tain men  have  made  them,  than  encyclopaedic 
knowledge  becomes  the  property  of  every  one  who 

109 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

buys  or  happens  to  inherit  an  edition  of  the  Ency- 
clopcBdia  Britannica.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  the 
discovery  of  each  new  portion  of  knowledge  enables 
men  to  acquire  it  who  might  never  have  acquired 
it  otherwise;  but  as  the  acquisition  of  the  details 
of  knowledge  becomes  facilitated,  the  number  of 
details  to  be  acquired  increases  at  the  same  time; 
and  the  increased  ease  of  acquiring  each  is  accom- 
panied by  an  increased  difficulty  in  assimilating 
even  those  which  are  connected  most  closely  with 
each  other.  We  may  safely  say  that  a  knowledge 
of  the  simple  rules  of  arithmetic  is  common  to  all 
the  members  of  the  English  University  of  Cam- 
bridge; but  out  of  some  thousands  of  students 
only  a  few  become  great  mathematicians.  And 
the  same  thing  holds  good  of  scientific  knowledge 
in  general,  and  especially  of  such  knowledge  as 
applied  to  the  purposes  of  practical  industry. 
Knowledge  and  inventions,  once  made,  are  like  a 
river  which  flows  by  everybody;  but  the  water  of 
the  river  becomes  the  property  of  individuals  only 
in  proportion  to  the  quantity  of  it  which  their 
brains  can,  as  it  were,  dip  up;  and  the  knowledge 
dipped  up  by  the  small  brains  is  no  more  equal  to 
that  dipped  up  by  the  large  than  a  tumbler  of 
water  is  made  equal  to  a  hogshead  by  the  fact  that 
both  vessels  have  been  filled  from  the  same  stream. 
Let  us  now  pass  on  to  the  argument  which,  dif- 
fering essentially  from  the  preceding  in  that  it 
does  not  aim  at  proving  that  the  great  men  are 
commoner  than  they  seem  to  be,  or  their  knowledge 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

more  diffused,  insists  that  of  what  the  great  men 
seem  to  do  veiy  Httle  is  really  their  own — or  that 
as  Mr.  Bellamy  puts  it,  in  words  which  we  have 
already   quoted,    "nine   hundred   and   ninety-nine 
parts  out  of  a  thousand  of  their  produce  is  really  the 
result  of  their  social  inheritance  and  environment." 
Here,  again,  we  have  a  statement  which,  from  one 
point  of  view,  is  true.     It  is  merely  a  specialized 
expression  of  the  far  more  general  doctrine  that  the 
whole  process  of  the  universe,  man  included,  is  one, 
and  that  all  individual  causes  are  only  partial  and 
proximate.     No  man  at  any  period  could  do  the 
precise  things  that  he  does  if  the  country  in  which 
he  lives  had  had  a  different  past  or  present,  any 
more  than  he  could  do  anything  if  it  were  not  for 
his  own  previous  life,  for  the  fact  that  he  had  been 
born,  that  his  mind  and  body  had  matured,  and 
that  he  had  acquired,  as  he  went  along,  such  and 
such  knowledge  and  experience.     How  could  a  man 
do  anything  unless  he  had  some  environment  ?    Un- 
less he  had  some  past,  how  could  he  exist  at  all? 
Mr.  Bellamy  and  his  friends,  when  considering  mat- 
ters in  this  light,  are  not  too  extreme  in  their  con- 
clusions.    On  the  contrary,  they  are  too  modest. 
For  men,  if  they  were  really  isolated  from  their 
social  inheritance  and  environment,  could  not  only 
do  but  little;  they  could  do  absolutely  nothing. 
The  admission,  therefore,  that  for  practical  pur- 
poses they  must  be  held  to  do  something  at  all 
events,  is  an  admission  wrung  from  our  philosophers 
by  the  exigencies  of  common-sense.     As  such,  then, 

III 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

let  us  accept  it;  and  what  will  our  conclusion  be? 
It  will  be  this:  that  whatever  it  may  be  which  the 
ordinary  man  produces,  and  in  whatever  sense  he 
produces  it,  the  great  man,  in  the  same  sense,  pro- 
duces a  great  deal  more.  The  difference  between 
them  in  efficiency  will  be  no  more  lessened  by  the 
fact  that  both  are  standing  on  the  pedestal  of  a 
common  past,  than  the  difference  in  stature  will 
be  lessened  between  a  dwarf  and  a  giant  because 
they  are  both  standing  on  the  top  of  a  New  York 
skyscraper,  or  because  they  have  both  been  nour- 
ished on  the  same  species  of  food. 

But  the  practical  absurdity  of  the  whole  set  of 
arguments  urged  in  a  contrary  sense  by  Herbert 
Spencer,  j\Ir.  Kidd,  and  the  speculative  sociologists 
generally,  is  brought  to  its  climax  by  those  modern 
exponents  of  socialism  who  attempt  to  invest  them 
with  a  moral  as  well  as  an  industrial  significance. 
Thus  Mr.  Webb,  who  himself  frankly  recognizes 
that  the  monopolists  of  business  ability  are  indus- 
trially more  efficient  than  the  great  mass  of  their 
fellows,  and  that  man  for  man  they  produce  incom- 
parably more  wealth,  endeavors,  by  means  of  the 
arguments  which  we  have  been  just  considering, 
to  show  that  though  they  produce  it  they  have  no 
moral  right  to  keep  it.  The  proposal,  he  says,  that 
though  men  are  vastly  unequal  in  productivity 
they  should  all  of  them  be  awarded  an  equal  share 
of  the  product — that  if  one  man  produces  only  one 
dollar,  while  another  man  produces  ninety-nine, 
the  resulting  hundred  should  be  halved  and  each 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  the  men  take  fifty — this  proposal  "  has,"  he  says, 
"an  abstract  justification,  as  the  special  energy 
and  ability  with  which  some  persons  are  born  is 
an  unearned  increment  due  to  the  effect  of  the 
struggle  for  existence  upon  their  ancestors,  and 
consequently,  having  been  produced  by  society,  is 
as  much  due  to  society  as  the  unearned  increment 
of  rent." 

Now  if  this  argument  has  any  practical  meaning 
at  all,  it  can  only  mean  that  the  men  who  have 
been  born  with  such  special  powers  will,  as  soon  as 
they  recognize  what  the  origin  of  these  powers  is, 
realize  that  they  have,  as  individuals,  no  special 
claims  on  the  results  of  them,  and  will  consequently 
become  more  willing  than  they  are  at  the  present 
time  to  continue  to  produce  the  results,  though 
they  will  not  be  allowed  to  keep  them.  We  will 
not  insist,  as  we  might  do,  on  the  curious  want  of 
knowledge  of  human  nature  which  the  argument 
thus  put  forward  by  Mr.  Webb  and  other  socialists 
betrays.  It  will  be  enough  to  point  out  that,  if  it 
applies  to  the  monopolists  of  business  ability,  it 
applies  with  equal  force  to  all  other  sorts  of  men 
whatever.  If  it  is  to  society  as  a  whole  that  the 
able  man  owes  his  energy,  his  talents,  and  the  prod- 
ucts of  them,  it  is  to  society  as  a  whole  that  the 
idle  man  owes  his  idleness,  the  stupid  man  his 
stupidity,  and  the  dishonest  man  his  dishonesty; 
and  if  the  able  man,  who  produces  an  exceptional 
amount  of  wealth,  can  with  justice  claim  no  more 
than  the  average  man  who  produces  little,  the  man 

113 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

who  is  so  idle  that  he  shirks  producing  anything 
may  with  equal  justice  claim  as  much  wealth  as 
either.  His  constitutional  fault,  and  his  constitu- 
tional disinclination  to  mend  it,  are  both  of  them 
due  to  society,  and  society,  not  he,  must  suffer. 

If  we  attempted  to  organize  a  community  in 
accordance  with  such  a  conclusion  as  this,  we 
should  be  getting  rid  of  all  connection  between 
conduct  and  the  natural  results  of  it,  and  divorc- 
ing action  from  motive  altogether.  Such  is  the 
conclusion  to  which  Mr.  Webb's  argument  would 
lead  us;  and  the  absurdity  of  the  argument,  as 
applied  by  him  to  moral  claims  and  merits,  though 
more  self-evident,  is  not  any  more  complete  than 
the  absurdity  of  similar  arguments  as  applied  to 
the  individual  generally  in  respect  of  his  produc- 
tive powers,  and  the  amount  of  produce  produced 
by  them.  The  whole  conception,  in  short,  of  the 
individual  as  merged  in  the  aggregate  has  no  rela- 
tion to  practical  life  whatever.  For  the  practical 
man  the  individual  is  always  a  unit ;  and  it  is  only 
as  a  unit  that  it  is  possible  practically  to  deal  with 
him.  We  may  change  him  in  some  respects  by 
changing  his  general  conditions,  as  we  hope  to  do 
by  legislation  which  aims  at  the  diminution  of 
drunkenness;  but  a  change  in  general  conditions, 
if  it  diminished  drunkenness  generally,  would  do 
so  only  because  it  affected  at  the  same  time  the 
isolated  minds  and  organisms  of  a  number  of  indi- 
vidual drunkards. 

And  to  do  Mr.  Webb  and  his  brother  socialists 

114 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

justice,  they  unconsciously  admit  all  this  them- 
selves; for,  as  soon  as  they  set  themselves  to  dis- 
cuss the  motives  of  the  able  man  in  detail,  they  al- 
together abandon  the  irrelevancies  of  speculative 
sociology  with  which  they  manage  at  other  times 
to  bemuse  themselves.  That  such  is  the  case  we 
shall  see  in  the  following  chapter.  I  will,  however, 
anticipate  what  we  shall  see  there  by  mentioning 
that  among  the  motives  which  are  in  the  socialis- 
tic future  to  replace,  among  able  men,  the  desire  of 
economic  gain,  one  of  the  chief  is  to  be  the  desire  of 
moral  approbation.  Unless  a  man's  actions,  wheth- 
er industrial  or  moral,  are  to  be  treated  as  his  own, 
instead  of  being  attributed  to  his  conditions,  he 
would  have  as  little  right  to  the  praise  which  it  is 
proposed  to  give  him  as  he  would  have  to  the 
dollars  which  it  is  proposed  to  take  away. 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE     ULTIMATE     DIFFICULTY,    CONTINUED.        ABILITY 
AND     INDIVIDUAL     MOTIVE 

The  individual  motives  of  the  able  man  as  dealt  with  directly 
by  modem  socialists. 

They  abandon  their  sociological  ineptitudes  altogether,  and 
betake  themselves  to  a  psychology  which  they  declare  to  be 
scientific,  but  which  is  based  on  no  analysis  of  facts,  and  con- 
sists really  of  loose  assumptions  and  false  analogies. 

Their  treatment  of  the  motives  of  the  artist,  the  thinker, 
the  religious  enthusiast,  and  the  soldier. 

Their  unscientific  treatment  of  the  soldier's  motive,  and  their 
fantastic  proposal  based  on  it  to  transfer  this  motive  from  the 
domain  of  war  to  that  of  industry. 

The  socialists  as  their  own  critics  when  they  denounce  the 
actual  motives  of  the  able  man  as  he  is  and  as  they  say  he 
always  has  been.  They  attack  the  typically  able  man  of  all 
periods  as  a  monster  of  congenital  selfishness,  and  it  is  men  of 
this  special  type  whom  they  propose  to  transform  suddenly 
into  monsters  of  self-abnegation. 

Their  want  of  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  their  own  moral  sua- 
sion and  their  proposal  to  supplement  this  by  the  ballot. 

The  fact  that  the  speculative  arguments  which 
we  have  just  now  been  discussing  are  not  only 
irrelevant  to  the  problem  of  the  able  man  and  his 
motives,  but  are  tacitly  abandoned  as  being  so  by 
the  very  men  who  have  urged  them,  when  they 
come  to  deal  specifically  with  that  problem  them- 

ii6 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

selves,  may  suggest  to  some  readers  that  so  long  a 
discussion  of  them  was  superfluous.  But  though 
the  socialists  abandon  them  at  the  very  moment 
when,  if  ever,  they  ought  to  be  susceptible  of  some 
definite  application,  they  abandon  them  quite  un- 
consciously, and  still  continue  to  attach  to  them 
some  solemn  importance.  Such  being  the  case, 
then,  the  more  futile  these  arguments  are  the 
stronger  is  the  light  thrown  by  them  on  the  peculiar 
intellectual  weakness  which  distinguishes  even  the 
most  capable  of  those  who  think  it  worth  their  while 
to  employ  them.  For  this  reason,  therefore,  if  for 
no  other,  our  examination  of  them  will  have  proved 
useful,  for  it  will  have  prepared  us  to  encounter  a 
weakness  of  precisely  the  same  kind  in  the  reason- 
ings of  the  socialists  when  they  deal  with  motive 
directly. 

Let  us  once  more  state  this  direct  problem  of 
motive,  as  with  perfect  accuracy,  stated  by  the  so- 
cialists themselves.  Under  existing  conditions  the 
monopolists  of  business  ability  are  mainly  induced 
to  add  to  the  national  store  of  wealth  by  the  pros- 
pect, whose  fulfilment  existing  conditions  make 
possible,  of  retaining  shares  of  it  as  their  own 
which  are  proportionate  to  the  amounts  produced 
by  them.  The  question  is,  therefore,  whether,  if 
this  prospect  is  taken  away  from  them,  socialism 
could  provide  another  which  men  of  this  special 
type  would  find  equally  stimulating.  Is  human 
nature  in  general,  and  the  nature  of  the  monopolists 
in  particular,   sufficiently  adaptable  to   admit    of 

9  117 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

such  a  change  as  this  ?  The  socialists  answer  that 
it  is,  and  in  making  such  an  assertion  they  declare 
that  they  have  all  the  facts  of  scientific  sociology 
at  the  back  of  them.  The  unscientific  thing  is, 
they  say,  to  assume  the  contrary;  and  here,  they 
proceed,  we  have  the  fundamental  error  which 
renders  most  of  the  conclusions  of  the  ordinary 
economists  valueless.  Economic  science,  in  its  gen- 
erally accepted  form,  bases  all  its  reasonings  on 
the  behavior  of  the  so-called  "economic  man" — 
that  is  to  say,  a  being  from  whom  those  who  reason 
about  him  exclude  all  operative  desires  except  that 
of  economic  gain.  But  such  a  being,  say  the  so- 
cialists, is  a  mere  abstraction.  He  has  no  counter- 
part among  living,  loving,  idealizing,  aspiring  men. 
Real  men  are  susceptible  of  the  desire  of  gain,  no 
doubt;  but  this  provides  them  only  with  one 
motive  out  of  many;  and  there  are  others  which, 
as  experience  amply  shows  us,  are,  when  they  are 
given  unimpeded  play,  far  stronger.  I  do  not 
know  whether  socialists  have  ever  used  the  follow- 
ing parallel;  but  if  they  have  not  it  expresses 
their  position  better  than  they  have  expressed  it 
themselves.  They  argue  virtually  that,  in  respect 
of  the  desire  for  exceptional  gain,  able  men  are  com- 
parable to  victims  of  the  desire  for  alcohol.  If  alco- 
hol is  obtainable,  such  men  will  insist  on  obtaining 
it.  They  will  constantly  fix  their  thoughts  on  it; 
no  other  fluid  will  satisfy  them.  But  if  it  is  placed 
altogether  beyond  their  reach,  they  will  be  com.- 
pelled  by  the  force  of  circumstances  to  drink  lemon- 

ii8 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

ade,  tea,  or  even  plain  water  instead.  In  time  they 
will  come  to  drink  them  with  the  same  avidity; 
and  their  health  and  their  powers  of  enjoyment 
will  be  indefinitely  improved  in  consequence.  In 
the  same  way,  it  is  argued,  the  monopolists  of  busi- 
ness ability,  though,  so  long  as  it  is  possible  for 
them  to  appropriate  a  considerable  share  of  their 
products,  they  will  insist  on  getting  this  share,  and 
will  not  exert  themselves  otherwise,  need  only  be 
placed  under  conditions  which  will  render  such 
gain  impossible,  and  at  once  they  will  find  out  that 
there  are  other  inducements  to  exert  themselves 
which  will  prove  before  long  to  be  no  less  effica- 
cious. 

Such  is  the  general  argument  of  the  modern 
school  of  socialists;  but  they  do  not  leave  it  in 
this  indeterminate  form.  They  have,  to  their  own 
satisfaction,  worked  it  out  in  detail,  and  claim  that 
they  are  able  to  demonstrate  from  the  actual  facts 
of  human  nature  precisely  what  the  character  of  the 
new  inducements  will  be. 

It  may  be  looked  upon  as  evidence  of  the  method- 
ical and  quasi-scientific  accuracy  with  which  mod- 
ern socialists  have  set  themselves  to  discuss  this 
question  of  motive  that  the  thought  of  all  of  them 
has  moved  along  the  same  lines,  and  that  what  all 
of  them  fix  upon  as  a  substitute  for  the  desire  of 
exceptional  pecuniary  gain  is  one  or  other,  or  all, 
of  a  few  motives  actually  in  operation,  and  noto- 
riously effective  in  certain  spheres  of  activity. 

These  motives  practically  resolve  themselves  into 
119 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

four,  which  have  been  classified  as  follows  by  Mr. 
Webb  or  one  of  his  coadjutors: 

"The  mere  pleasure  of  excelling,"  or  the  joy  of 
the  most  powerful  in  exercising  their  powers  to  the 
utmost. 

"The  joy  in  creative  work,"  such  as  that  which 
the  artist  feels  in  producing  a  great  work  of  art. 

The  satisfaction  which  ministering  to  others 
"brings  to  the  instincts  of  benevolence,"  such  as 
that  which  is  felt  by  those  who  give  themselves  to 
the  sick  and  helpless. 

And,  lastly,  the  desire  for  approval,  or  the  homage 
which  is  called  "honor,"  the  efficiency  of  which  is 
shown  by  the  conduct  of  the  soldier — often  a  man 
of  very  ordinary  education  and  character — who 
will  risk  death  in  order  that  he  may  be  decorated 
with  some  intrinsically  worthless  medal,  which 
merely  proclaims  his  valor  or  his  unselfish  devo- 
tion to  his  country. 

Now  that  the  motives  here  in  question  are 
motives  of  extraordinary  power,  all  history  shows 
us.  The  most  impressive  things  accomplished  by 
human  nature  have  been  due  to  them.  But  let  us 
consider  what  these  things  are.  The  first  motive — 
namely,  that  supplied  by  the  mere  "pleasure  in 
excelling,"  we  need  hardly  consider  by  itself,  for, 
in  so  far  as  socialists  can  look  upon  its  objects  as 
legitimate,  it  is  included  in  the  struggle  for  appro- 
bation or  honor.  We  will  merely  remark  that  the 
emphasis  which  the  socialists  lay  on  it  is  not  very 
consonant  with  the  principles  of  those  persons  who 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

propose  to  abolish  competition  as  the  root  of  all 
social  evils,  and  we  will  content  ourselves  with  ex- 
amining in  detail  the  three  other  motives  only,  and 
the  scope  of  their  efficiency,  as  actual  experience 
reveals  it  to  us. 

We  shall  find  that  the  activities  which  these 
three  motives  stimulate  are  confined,  so  far  as 
experience  is  able  to  teach  us  anything,  to  the 
following  well-marked  kinds,  which  have  been  al- 
ready indicated :  those  of  the  artist,  of  the  specu- 
lative thinker,  of  the  religious  and  philanthropic 
enthusiast,  and,  lastly,  those  of  the  soldier.  This 
list,  if  understood  in  its  full  sense,  is  exhaustive. 

Such  being  the  case,  then,  the  argument  of  the 
socialists  is  as  follows:  Because  a  Fra  Angelico 
will  paint  a  Christ  or  a  Virgin,  because  a  Kant  will 
immolate  all  his  years  to  philosophy,  because  a 
monk  and  a  sister  of  mercy  will  devote  themselves 
to  the  victims  of  pestilence,  because  a  soldier  in 
action  will  eagerly  face  death — all  without  hope  of 
any  exceptional  pecuniary  reward —  the  monopolists 
of  business  ability,  if  only  such  rewards  are  made 
impossible  for  them,  will  at  once  become  amena- 
able  to  the  motives  of  the  soldier,  the  artist,  the 
philosopher,  the  inspired  philanthropist,  and  the 
saint.  This  is  the  assertion  of  the  socialists  when 
reduced  to  a  precise  form ;  and  what  we  have  to  do 
is  to  inquire  whether  this  assertion  is  true.  Does 
human  nature,  as  history,  as  psychology,  and  as 
physiology  reveal  it  to  us,  give  us  any  grounds,  in 
fact,  for  taking  such  an  assertion  seriously?     Any 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

one  who  has  studied  human  conduct  historically, 
who  has  observed  it  in  the  life  around  him,  and 
examined  scientifically  the  diversities  of  tempera- 
ment and  motive  that  go  with  diversities  of  capac- 
ity, will  dismiss  such  an  assertion  as  at  once  ground- 
less and  ludicrous. 

Let  us,  to  go  into  detail,  take  the  case  of  the 
artist.  What  reason  is  there  to  suppose  that  the 
impassioned  emotion  which  stimulates  the  adoring 
monk  to  lavish  all  his  genius  on  an  altar-piece  will 
stimulate  another  man  to  devise,  and  to  organize 
the  production  of,  some  new  kind  of  liquid  enamel 
for  the  decoration  of  cheap  furniture  ?  ^  Or  let  us 
turn  to  an  impulse  closely  allied  to  the  artistic — 
namely,  the  desire  for  speculative  truth,  as  mani- 
fested in  the  lives  of  scientific  and  philosophic 
thinkers.  These  men — such  as  Kant  and  Hegel, 
for  example — have  been  proverbially,  and  often 
ludicrously,  indifferent  to  the  material  details  of 


'  Mr.  G.  Wilshire,  in  criticising  this  argument  as  stated  in  one 
of  my  American  addresses,  declares  that  there  would  be  noth- 
ing in  socialism  to  prevent  any  great  artist  (such  as  a  singer) 
from  making  an  even  larger  fortune  than  he  or  she  does  now. 
But  though  a  Melba,  under  the  existing  system,  demands  a 
large  price  for  her  services,  under  socialism  all  would  be 
changed.  Though  she  could  get  it,  she  would  no  longer  want 
it.  She  would  then  want  no  reward  but  the  mere  joy  of 
using  her  voice.  And  he  infers  that  this  change  which  would 
take  place  in  the  bosoms  of  prima  donnas  would  repeat  itself 
under  the  breast-pocket  of  every  leader  and  organizer  of  com- 
mercial enterprise.  It  would  be  hard  to  find  a  better  illus- 
tration of  the  purely  fanciful  reasoning  commented  on  in  the 
text. 

122 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

their  existence.  Who  can  suppose  that  the  disin- 
terested passion  for  truth,  which  had  the  effect  of 
making  these  men  forget  their  dinners,  will  stimu- 
late others  to  devote  themselves  to  the  improve- 
ment of  stoves  and  saucepans  ? 

Yet  again,  let  us  consider  the  area  of  the  indus- 
trial influence  of  the  motives  originating  in  religious 
fervor  or  benevolence.  The  most  important  illus- 
tration of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  monastic  orders. 
The  monastic  orders  constructed  great  buildings; 
they  successfully  practised  agriculture  and  other 
industrial  arts ;  and  those  of  them  who  were  faith- 
ful to  their  vows  aimed  at  no  personal  luxuries. 
On  the  contrary,  their  superfluous  possessions  were 
applied  by  them  to  the  relief  of  indigence.  But  this 
industrial  asceticism  was  made  possible  only  by  its 
association  with  another  asceticism — the  renuncia- 
tion of  women,  the  private  home,  the  family.  Even 
so,  in  the  days  when  Christian  piety  was  at  its  high- 
est, those  who  were  capable  of  responding  to  the 
industrial  motives  of  the  cloister  formed  but  a  frac- 
tion of  the  general  population  of  Christendom,  while 
even  among  them  these  motives  constantly  ceased 
to  operate;  and,  as  St.  Francis  declared  with  regard 
to  his  own  disciples,  the  desire  for  personal  gain 
continually  insisted  on  reasserting  itself.  What 
ground  have  we  here  for  supposing  that  motives, 
whose  action  hitherto  has  always  been  strictly  lim- 
ited to  passionate  and  seclusive  idealists  turning 
their  backs  on  the  world,  will  ever  become  general 
among  the  monopolists  of  that  business  ability,  the 

123 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

object  of  which  is  to  fill  the  world  with  increasing 
comforts  and  luxuries?  One  might  as  well  argue 
that,  because  the  monastic  orders  were  celibate, 
and  formed  at  one  time  a  very  numerous  body,  all 
men  will  probably  soon  turn  celibate  also,  and  yet 
at  the  same  time  continue  to  reproduce  their 
species. 

But  the  scientific  quality  of  the  psychological 
reasoning  of  the  socialists  is  best  illustrated  by 
their  treatment  of  another  class  of  facts — that  on 
which  they  themselves  unanimously  lay  the  great- 
est stress — namely,  the  heroisms  of  the  soldier,  and 
other  men  of  a  kindred  type.  The  soldier,  they  say, 
is  not  only  willing  but  eager  to  perform  duties  of 
the  most  painful  and  dangerous  kind,  without  any 
thought  of  receiving  any  higher  pay  than  his  fel- 
lows. If,  then,  human  nature  is  such,  they  con- 
tinue, that  we  can  get  from  it  on  these  terms  work 
such  as  that  of  the  soldier's,  which  is  work  in  its 
most  terrifying  form,  it  stands  to  reason  that  we 
can,  on  the  same  tenns,  get  out  of  it  work  of  a 
much  easier  kind,  such  as  that  of  exceptional  busi- 
ness ability  applied  to  the  safe  and  peaceful  di- 
rection of  labor.  Nor  is  this  argument  urged  by 
socialists  only.  Other  thinkers  who,  though  re- 
sembling them  somewhat  in  sentiment,  are  wholly 
opposed  to  socialism  as  a  formal  creed,  have  like- 
wise pitched  upon  the  soldier's  conduct  in  war  as 
a  signal  illustration  of  the  potentialities  of  human 
nature  in  peace.  Thus  Ruskin  says  that  his  whole 
scheme  of  political  economy  is  based  on  the  moral 

124 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

assimilation  of  industrial  action  to  military.  "  Sol- 
diers of  the  ploughshare,"  he  exclaims  in  one  of  his 
works,  "as  well  as  soldiers  of  the  sword!  All  my 
political  economy  is  comprehended  in  that  phrase." 
So,  too,  Mr.  Frederic  Harrison,  the  English  prophet 
of  Positivism,  following  out  the  same  train  of 
thought,  has  declared  that  the  soldier's  readiness 
to  die  in  battle  for  his  country  is  a  realized  example 
of  a  readiness,  always  latent  in  men,  to  spend  them- 
selves and  be  spent  in  the  service  of  humanity 
generally.  Again  in  the  same  sense,  another  writer 
observes,  "The  soldier's  subsistence  is  certain.  It 
does  not  depend  on  his  exertions.  At  once  he  be- 
comes susceptible  to  appeals  to  his  patriotism,  and 
he  will  value  a  bit  of  bronze,  which  is  the  reward  of 
valor,  far  more  than  a  hundred  times  its  weight  in 
gold  " — a  passage  to  which  one  of  Mr.  Sidney  Webb's 
collaborators  refers  with  special  delight,  exclaiming, 
"Let  those  take  notice  of  this  last  fact  who  fancy 
we  must  wait  till  men  are  angels  before  socialism 
is  practical." 

Now  the  arguments  thus  drawn  from  the  facts 
of  military  activity  throw  a  special  light  on  the 
methods  and  mental  condition  of  those  who  so 
solemnly  urge  them;  for  the  error  by  which  these 
arguments  are  vitiated  is  of  a  peculiarly  glaring 
kind.  It  consists  of  a  failure  to  perceive  that  mili- 
tary activity  is,  in  many  respects,  a  thing  altogether 
apart,  and  depends  on  psychological  and  physio- 
logical conditions  which  have  no  analogies  in  the 
domain  of  ordinary  economic  effort. 

125 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

That  such  must  necessarily  be  the  case  can  be 
very  easily  seen  by  following  out  the  train  of 
reasoning  suggested  by  Mr.  Frederic  Harrison. 
Mr.  Harrison  correctly  assumes  that  no  man,  in 
ordinary  life,  will  run  the  risk  of  being  killed  or 
mutilated  except  for  the  sake  of  some  object  the 
achievement  of  which  is  profoundly  desired  by  him. 
If  a  man,  for  instance,  puts  his  hand  into  the  fire 
in  order  to  pick  out  something  that  has  dropped 
among  the  burning  coals,  we  naturally  assume  that 
this  something  is  of  the  utmost  value  and  impor- 
tance to  him.  We  measure  the  value  which  a  man 
places  on  the  object  by  the  desperate  character  of 
the  means  which  he  will  take  to  gain  it;  and  Mr. 
Harrison  jumps  to  the  conclusion  that  what  holds 
good  in  ordinary  life  will  hold  equally  good  on  the 
field  of  battle  also.  Hence  he  argues — for  this  is 
his  special  point — that  the  willingness  of  the  sol- 
dier to  die  fighting  on  behalf  of  his  country  shows 
how  individuals  of  no  unusual  kind  value  their 
country's  welfare  more  than  their  own  lives,  and 
how  readily,  such  being  the  case,  devotion  to  a 
particular  country  may  be  enlarged  into  a  religious 
devotion  to  Humanity  taken  as  a  whole.  Now 
there  are  occasions,  no  doubt,  in  which,  a  country 
being  in  desperate  straits,  the  soldier's  valor  is 
heightened  by  devotion  to  the  cause  he  fights  for; 
but  that  ideal  devotion  like  this  affords  no  sufficient 
explanation  of  the  peculiar  character  of  military 
activity  generally,  and  that  there  must  be  some 
deeper  and  more  general  cause  at  the  back  of  it,  is 

126 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

shown  by  the  fact  that  some  of  the  most  reckless 
soldiers  known  to  us  have  been  mercenaries  who 
would  fight  as  willingly  for  one  country  as  for  an- 
other. And  this  deeper  and  more  general  cause, 
when  we  look  for  it,  is  sufficiently  obvious.  It 
consists  of  the  fact  that,  owing  to  the  millions  of 
years  of  struggle  to  which  was  due,  in  the  first  place, 
the  evolution  of  man  as  a  species,  and,  in  the  second 
place,  the  races  of  men  in  their  existing  stages  of 
civilization,  the  fighting  instinct  is,  in  the  strongest 
of  these  races,  inherent  after  a  fashion  in  which  the 
industrial  instincts  are  not ;  and  will  always  prompt 
numbers  to  do,  for  the  smallest  wage  or  none,  what 
they  could  hardly,  in  its  absence,  be  induced  to  do 
for  the  highest.  This  instinct,  no  doubt,  is  more 
controlled  than  formerly,  and  is  not  so  often  roused ; 
but  it  is  still  there.  It  is  ready  to  quicken  at  the 
mere  sound  of  military  music;  and  the  sight  of 
regiments  marching  stirs  the  most  apathetic  crowd. 
High-spirited  boys  will,  for  the  mere  pleasure  of 
fighting,  run  the  risk  of  having  their  noses  broken, 
while  they  will  wince  at  getting  up  in  the  cold  for 
the  sake  of  learning  their  lessons,  and  would  cer- 
tainly rebel  against  being  set  to  work  as  wage- 
earners  at  a  task  which  involved  so  much  as  a  daily 
pricking  of  their  fingers. 

Here  we  have  the  reason,  embodied  in  the  very 
organism  of  the  human  being,  why  military  activity 
is  something  essentially  distinct  from  industrial, 
and  why  any  inference  drawn  from  the  one  to  the 
other  is  valueless.     And  to  this  primary  fact  it  is 

127 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

necessary  to  add  another.  Not  only  is  the  fighting 
instinct  an  exceptional  phenomenon  in  man,  but 
the  circumstances  which  call  it  into  being  are  in 
these  days  exceptional  also.  Socialists  frequently, 
when  referring  to  the  soldier's  conduct,  refer  also 
to  conduct  of  a  closely  allied  kind,  such  as  that  of 
the  members  of  fire-brigades  and  the  crews  of  life- 
boats, and  repeat  their  previous  question  of  why, 
since  men  like  these  will,  without  demanding  any 
exceptional  reward,  make  such  exceptional  efforts 
to  save  the  lives  of  others,  the  monopolists  of  busi- 
ness ability  may  not  be  reasonably  expected  to 
forego  all  exceptional  claims  on  their  own  excep- 
tional products,  and  distribute  among  all  the  super- 
fluous wealth  produced  by  them  just  as  freely  as 
the  fireman  climbs  his  ladder,  or  as  life-belts  are 
distributed  by  the  boatmen  in  their  work  of  rescue. 
And  if  human  life  were  nothing  but  a  chronic  con- 
flagration or  shipwreck,  in  which  all  alike  were 
fighting  for  bare  existence,  all  alike  being  menaced 
by  some  terrible  and  instant  death,  this  argument 
of  the  socialists  might  doubtless  have  some  truth 
in  it.  The  men  of  exceptional  ability,  by  a  variety 
of  ingenious  devices,  might  seek  to  save  others  no 
less  assiduously  than  themselves,  without  expect- 
ing anything  like  exceptional  wealth  as  a  reward; 
for  there  would,  in  a  case  like  this,  be  no  question 
of  wealth  for  anybody.  But  as  soon  as  the  stress 
of  such  a  situation  was  relaxed,  and  the  abilities  of 
the  ablest,  liberated  from  the  task  of  contending 
with  death,  were  left  free  to  devote  themselves  to 

128 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

the  superfluous  decoration  of  life,  the  artificial  ten- 
sion of  the  moral  motives  would  be  relaxed.  The 
swimmer  who  had  plunged  into  the  sea  to  save  a 
woman  from  drowning  would  not  take  a  second 
plunge  to  rescue  her  silk  petticoat.  The  socialists, 
in  short,  when  dealing  with  military  and  other 
cognate  heroisms,  ignore  both  of  the  causes  which 
alone  make  such  heroisms  possible.  They  ignore 
the  fact  that  the  internal  motive  is  essentially 
isolated  and  exceptional.  They  ignore  the  further 
fact  that  the  circumstances  which  alone  give  this 
motive  play  are  essentially  exceptional  also,  and 
could  never  be  reproduced  in  social  life  at  large,  ex- 
cept at  the  cost  of  making  all  human  life  intolerable. 
I  have  called  special  attention  to  this  particular 
socialistic  argument,  partly  because  socialists,  and 
other  sentimental  thinkers,  like  Ruskin,  attach  such 
extreme  importance  to  it;  but  mainly  because  it 
affords  us  an  exceptionally  striking  illustration  of 
the  manner  in  which  they  are  accustomed  to  reason 
about  matters  with  regard  to  which  they  ostenta- 
tiously profess  themselves  to  be  the  pioneers  of 
accurate  science.  One  of  the  principal  grounds, 
as  I  have  had  occasion  to  mention  already,  on 
which  they  attack  what  they  call  the  Economics 
of  Capitalism,  is  that  it  deals  exclusively  with  the 
actions  of  "the  economic  man,"  or  the  man  whose 
one  motive  is  the  appropriation  of  wealth.  Such 
a  man,  they  say,  is  an  abstraction.  He  does  not 
exist  in  reality;  and  if  economics  is  to  have  any 
scientific  value  it  must  deal  with  man  as  a  whole, 

129 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

in  all  his  living  complexity.  As  applied  to  the 
orthodox  economists  this  criticism  has  an  element 
of  truth  in  it;  but  when  the  socialists  attempt  to 
act  on  their  own  loudly  boasted  principles,  and 
deal  with  human  nature  as  a  whole  instead  of  only 
one  of  its  elements,  they  do  nothing  but  travesty 
the  error  which  they  set  out  with  denouncing. 
The  one-motived  economic  man  who  cares  only 
for  personal  gain  is,  no  doubt,  an  abstraction,  like 
the  lines  and  points  of  Euclid.  Still  the  motive 
ascribed  to  him  is  one  which  has  a  real  existence 
and  produces  real  effects.  It  has  been  defined  with 
accuracy;  and  by  studying  its  effects  in  isolation 
we  reach  many  true  conclusions.  But  the  other 
motives,  with  which  socialists  declare  that  we  must 
supplement  this,  are  treated  by  them  in  a  manner 
so  crude,  so  childish,  so  incomplete,  so  deficient  in 
the  mere  rudiments  of  scientific  analysis,  that  they 
do  not  correspond  to  anything.  Instead  of  forming 
any  true  addition  to  the  data  of  economic  science, 
they  are  like  images  belonging  to  the  dream  of  a 
maudlin  school-girl.  They  have  only  the  effect  of 
obscuring,  not  completing,  the  facts  to  which  the 
orthodox  economists  too  closely  confined  them- 
selves, but  which,  though  incomplete,  are  so  far  as 
they  go  actual. 

Now,  however,  without  getting  out  of  touch  with 
the  socialists,  let  us  return  to  firmer  ground,  and 
having  seen  the  futility  of  their  attempts  to  indi- 
cate any  motive  calculated  to  operate  on  the 
monopolists  of  business  ability,  other  than  that 

130 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

supplied  under  the  existing  system  by  the  prospect 
of  possessing  wealth  proportionate  to  the  amount 
produced  by  them,  let  us  consider  this  motive  in 
itself,  as  history  and  observation  reveal  it  to  us. 

And  here  in  the  presence  of  facts  which  no  one 
seeks  to  deny,  we  shall  find  that  the  socialists 
themselves  are  among  our  most  interesting  wit- 
nesses, affording  in  what  they  assert  a  solitary  and 
signal  exception  to  that  looseness  of  thought  and 
observation  which  is  otherwise  their  distinguishing 
characteristic.  The  motive  here  in  question  as 
ascribed  to  the  exceptional  wealth-producer,  the 
director,  the  man  of  business  ability — the  motive 
which  in  his  case  the  socialists  propose  to  super- 
sede, but  which  is  at  present  in  possession  of  the 
field,  commonly  receives  from  them  the  vitupera- 
tive name  of  "greed."  What  they  mean  by  greed 
is  simply  the  desire  of  the  great  wealth-producer  to 
retain  for  himself  a  share  of  wealth,  not  necessarily 
equal,  but  proportionate,  to  the  amount  produced 
by  him.  And  what  have  the  socialists  got  to  tell 
us  about  greed,  when  they  turn  from  their  plans 
for  superseding  it  in  the  socialistic  future  to  con- 
sider its  operations  in  the  actual  past  and  present  ? 

They  tell  us  a  great  deal.  For  what  is,  and 
always  has  been,  their  stock  moral  indictment 
against  the  typical  men  of  ability,  the  pioneers  of 
commerce,  the  capitalistic  directors  of  labor,  the 
introducers  of  new  inventions,  the  amplifiers  of 
the  world's  wealth  ?  Their  chief  indictment  against 
such  men  has  been  this — that  their  exceptional 

131 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

ability,  instead  of  being  roused  into  action  solely 
by  the  pleasure  of  benefiting  their  fellow-men,  has 
been  utterly  dead  and  irresponsive  to  every  stimulus 
but  one ;  and  that  this  has  been  personal  greed,  and 
personal  greed  alone.  Its  influence,  they  say,  is  as 
old  as  civilization  itself,  and  was  as  operative  in  the 
days  when  the  prows  of  the  Tyrian  traders  first 
ploughed  their  way  beyond  the  pillars  of  Hercules, 
as  it  is  to-day  under  the  smoke-clouds  of  Manches- 
ter, of  Pittsburg,  and  Chicago.  Karl  Marx,  for 
example,  in  a  very  interesting  passage  written  in 
England  about  the  time  of  the  abolition  of  the 
Corn-laws,  declared  that  the  radical  manufacturers, 
who  professed  to  support  that  measure  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  secure  cheap  food  for  the 
people,  were  not  moved  in  reality,  and  were  not 
capable  of  being  moved,  by  any  desire  but  that  of 
lowering  the  rate  of  wages,  and  thus  increasing  the 
surplus  which  they  raked  into  their  own  pockets. 
In  other  words,  the  psychologists  of  socialism  de- 
clare that,  so  far  as  the  facts  of  human  nature  in 
the  present  and  the  past  can  teach  us  anything,  the 
desire  of  exceptional  wealth  is  just  as  inseparable 
from  the  temperament  which,  by  some  physiologi- 
cal law,  accompanies  the  power  of  producing  it,  as 
"the  joy  in  creation"  is  from  the  temperament  of 
the  great  painter,  or  the  love  of  a  woman  is  from 
the  lover's  efforts  to  win  her. 

We  thus  see  that  those  thinkers  who,  when  they 
are  dealing  with  an  imaginary  future,  base  all  their 
hopes  on  the  possibility  of  a  complete  elimination 

132 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  a  certain  motive  from  a  certain  special  class  of 
persons,  are  the  very  men  who  are  most  vehement 
in  declaring  that  in  this  special  class  of  persons  the 
motive  in  question  is  something  so  ingrained  and 
inveterate  that  in  no  age  or  country  has  it  ever 
been  so  much  as  modified. 

Nor  does  the  matter  end  here;  for  the  amusing 
contradiction  in  which  socialistic  thought  thus 
lauds  itself,  is  emphasized  by  the  fact  that  the 
socialists,  when  they  turn  from  the  few  to  the 
many,  assume  in  the  many,  as  an  instinct  of  eternal 
justice,  that  precise  desire  for  gain  which,  in  the 
case  of  the  few,  they  first  denounce  as  a  hideous 
and  incurable  disease,  and  then  propose  to  cure 
as  though  it  were  the  passing  cough  of  a  baby. 
For  what  is  the  bait  with  which,  from  its  first  be- 
ginnings till  to-day,  socialism  has  sought  to  secure 
the  support  of  the  general  multitude  ?  It  is  mainly, 
if  not  solely,  the  promise  of  increased  personal  gain, 
without  any  increased  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
happy  recipients.  With  Marx  and  the  earlier  so- 
cialists, this  promise  took  the  form  of  declaring 
that  every  man  has  a  sacred  right  to  whatever  he 
has  himself  produced,  and  that,  all  the  wealth  of 
the  world  being  produced  by  manual  labor,  the 
laborers  must  never  be  satisfied  until  they  have 
secured  all  of  it.  The  more  educated  socialists  of 
to-day,  having  gradually  come  to  perceive  that 
labor  itself  produces  but  a  fraction  of  this  wealth 
only,  have  had  to  alter  the  form  of  their  promise, 
but  they  still  adhere  to  its  substance;  and  the 
^°  133 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

altered  form  of  the  promise  does  but  bring  out 
more  clearly  the  fact  that  they  appeal  to  the  desire 
of  personal  gain  as  the  primary  economic  motive 
of  the  great  majority  of  mankind.  For,  whereas 
the  earlier  socialists  contented  themselves  with 
promising  the  laborer  the  whole  of  what  he  pro- 
duced, and  promising  it  on  the  ground  that  he  had 
himself  produced  it,  what  the  laborer  is  promised 
by  the  intellectual  socialists  of  to-day,  is  not  only 
all  that  he  has  produced — which  in  most  cases  he 
gets  already — but  a  great  deal  more  besides,  which 
is  admittedly  produced  by  others. 

We  thus  see  that,  according  to  these  theorists, 
the  kind  of  moral  conversion  which  is  to  make 
socialism  practicable  is  to  be  rigidly  confined  to 
one  particular  class;  for,  on  the  part  of  the  ma- 
jority, no  change  at  all  is  required  in  order  to  make 
the  socialistic  evangel  welcome.  So  far  as  they 
are  concerned,  the  Old  Adam  is  quite  sufficient. 
None  of  us  need  much  converting  in  order  to  wel- 
come the  prospect  of  an  indefinite  addition  to  our 
incomes,  which  will  cost  us  nothing  but  the  trouble 
of  stretching  out  our  hands  to  take  it.  Socialists 
often  complain  that,  under  the  existing  dispensa- 
tion, there  is  one  law  for  the  rich  and  another  law 
for  the  poor.  They  propose  themselves  to  intro- 
duce a  difference  which  goes  still  deeper,  and  to 
provide  the  few  and  the  many,  not  only  with  two 
laws,  but  with  two  different  natures,  and  two 
antithetic  moralities.  The  morality  of  the  many 
is  to  remain,  as  it  always  has  been,  comfortably 

134 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

based  on  the  familiar  desire  for  dollars.  The  moral- 
ity of  the  few  is  to  be  based  on  some  hitherto 
unknown  contempt  for  them;  and  the  class  which 
the  socialists  fix  upon  as  the  subjects  of  this  moral 
transformation,  is  precisely  the  class  which  they 
denounce  as  being,  and  as  always  having  been,  in 
respect  of  its  devotion  to  dollars,  the  most  noto- 
rious, and  the  most  notoriously  incorrigible. 

That  arguments  such  as  these,  culminating  in  an 
absurdity  like  this,  and  starting  with  the  assump- 
tion that  it  is  possible  to  animate  a  manufacturer's 
office  with  the  spirit  of  soldiers  facing  an  enemy's 
guns,  should  actually  emanate  from  sane  men 
would  be  unbelievable,  if  the  arguments  were  not 
being  repeated  from  day  to  day  by  men  who,  in 
some  respects,  are  far  from  being  incompetent  rea- 
soners.  Indeed,  many  of  them  themselves  would, 
it  seems,  be  extremely  doubtful  with  regard  to  the 
plasticity  imputed  by  them  to  human  nature,  if  it 
were  not  for  a  theory  of  society  which  is  not  pecul- 
iar to  socialism.  This  is  the  theory  that,  in  any 
community  or  nation  in  which  each  citizen  is  com- 
pletely free  to  express  his  will  by  his  vote,  and 
realizes  the  extent  of  the  power  which  thus  resides 
in  him,  the  will  of  the  majority  has  practically  no 
limits  to  its  efficiency,  and  will  be  able  in  the  future 
to  bring  about  moral  changes,  which  are  at  present, 
perhaps,  beyond  the  limits  of  possibility,  but  are 
only  so  because  the  means  of  effecting  them  have 
never  yet  been  fully  utilized.  This  theory  of  de- 
mocracy we  will  consider  in  the  following  chapter. 


CHAPTER   X 

INDIVIDUAL   MOTIVE   AND   DEMOCRACY 

Exaggerated  powers  ascribed  to  democracy  by  inaccurate 
thinkers. 

An  example  from  an  essay  by  a  recent  philosophic  thinker, 
with  special  reference  to  the  rewards  of  exceptional  ability. 

This  writer  maintains  that  the  money  rewards  of  ability 
can  be  determined  by  the  opinion  of  the  majority  expressing 
itself  through  votes  and  statutes. 

The  writer's  typical  error.  A  governing  body  might  enact 
any  laws,  but  they  would  not  be  obeyed  unless  consonant  with 
human  nature. 

Laws  are  obliged  to  conform  to  the  propensities  of  human 
nature  which  it  is  their  office  to  regulate. 

Elaborate  but  unconscious  admission  of  this  fact  by  the 
writer  here  quoted  himself. 

The  power  of  democracy  in  the  economic  sphere,  its  magni- 
tude and  its  limits.  The  demands  of  the  minority  a  counter- 
part of  those  of  the  majority. 

The  demand  of  the  great  wealth-producer  mainly  a  demand 
for  power. 

Testimony  of  a  well-known  socialist  to  the  impossibility 
of  altering  the  character  of  individual  demand  by  outside 
influence. 

The  ascription  of  imaginary  powers  to  the  so- 
called  "sovereign"  democracy,  which  are  really  be- 
yond the  reach  of  any  kind  of  government  what- 
soever, is,  as  I  have  said,  a  fallacy  by  no  means 

136 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

peculiar  to  socialists.  Socialists  merely  push  it  to 
its  full  logical  consequences ;  and  I  will  begin  with 
illustrating  it  by  the  arguments  of  a  recent  writer 
who,  professedly  as  a  social  conservative,  has  dealt 
in  detail  with  this  precise  question  of  the  motives 
of  the  exceptional  wealth-producer,  which  has  just 
now  been  engaging  us.  I  refer  to  the  author  of  an 
essay  in  The  North  American  Review,  who  hides  his 
personality  under  the  cryptic  initial  "X,"  but  who 
is  said  to  be  one  of  the  most  cultivated  and  best- 
known  thinkers  now  living  in  the  United  States. 

The  subject  of  his  essay  is  the  growth,  almost  pe- 
culiar to  that  country,  not  of  large,  but  of  those  co- 
lossal fortunes,  which  have  certainly  had  no  parallel 
in  the  past  history  of  the  world.  The  position  of 
"  X  "  is  that  the  growth  of  such  fortunes  is  deplora- 
ble, partly  because  they  are  possible  instruments 
of  judicial  and  political  corruption,  and  partly 
because  they  excite  antagonism  against  private 
wealth  in  general  by  exhibiting  it  to  the  gaze  of 
the  multitude  in  such  monstrous  and  grotesque 
proportions.  In  any  case,  says  "X,"  "it  is  to  the 
true  interest  of  the  multimillionaires  themselves  to 
join  those  who  are  free  from  envy  in  trying  to  re- 
move the  rapidly  growing  dissatisfaction  with  their 
continued  possession  of  these  vast  sums  of  money." 

Now,  though  "  X  "  hints  that  some  of  the  fortunes 
in  question  may  be  open  to  further  reprehension, 
on  the  ground  that  they  have  been  acquired  dis- 
honestly, he  by  no  means  maintains  that  this  op- 
probrium attaches  itself  to  the  great  majority  of 

137 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISxM 

them.  On  the  contrary,  he  admits  that  the  typical 
huge  fortunes  of  America  are  based  on  the  produc- 
tive activities  of  the  remarkable  men  who  have 
amassed  them.  The  talents  of  such  men,  he  says, 
are  essential  to  the  prosperity  of  the  country,  and 
it  is  necessary  to  stimulate  such  men  to  develop 
their  talents  to  the  utmost  by  allowing  them  to 
derive  for  themselves  some  special  reward  for  their 
use  of  them;  but  he  contends  that  the  rewards 
which  they  are  at  present  permitted  to  appropriate 
are  needlessly  and  dangerously  excessive,  and  ought 
therefore  to  be  limited.  But  limited  by  what 
means  ?  It  is  his  answer  to  this  question  that  here 
alone  concerns  us. 

The  means,  he  says,  by  which  these  rewards  may 
be  limited  are  ready  to  hand,  and  can  be  applied 
with  the  utmost  ease.  They  are  provided  by  the 
democratic  Constitution  of  the  United  States  of 
America.  "  No  one  can  doubt,  for  example,"  he 
goes  on  to  observe,  "that,  if  the  majority  of  the 
voters  of  the  State  of  New  York  chose  to  elect  a 
governor  of  their  own  way  of  thinking,  they  could 
readily  enact  a  progressive  taxation  of  incomes 
which  would  limit  every  citizen  of  New  York  State 
to  such  income  as  the  majority  of  voters  considers 
sufficient  for  him.  And  it  would  be  particularly 
easy,"  adds  the  writer,  "to  alienate  the  property 
of  every  man  at  death,  for  it  is  only  necessary  to 
repeal  the  statutes  now  authorizing  the  descent  of 
such  property  to  the  heirs  and  legatees  of  the  dece- 
dent."    Here,  then,  according  to  "X,"  is  an  obvi- 

138 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

ous  way  out  of  the  difficulty,  the  feasibiHty  of 
which  no  one  can  doubt.  A  certain  minority  of 
the  citizens  render  services  essential  to  the  majority ; 
but  these  advantages  are  accompanied  by  a  corre- 
sponding drawback.  The  majority,  by  the  simple 
use  of  their  sovereign  power  as  legislators,  can 
retain  the  former  and  get  rid  of  the  latter.  The 
remedy  is  in  their  own  hands. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  imagine  an  illustration 
more  vivid  than  this  of  the  error  to  which  I  am 
now  referring — the  common  error  of  ascribing  to 
majorities  in  democratic  communities  powers  which 
they  do  not  possess,  and  which,  as  I  said  before, 
no  kind  of  government  possesses,  whether  it  be 
that  of  a  democracy  or  of  an  autocrat.  That  a  ma- 
jority of  the  voters  in  any  democratic  country  can 
enact  any  laws  they  please  at  any  given  moment 
which  happen  to  be  in  accordance  with  what  "X" 
calls  their  then  "way  of  thinking,"  and  perhaps 
enforce  them  for  a  moment,  is  no  doubt  perfectly 
true.  But  life  is  not  made  up  of  isolated  moments 
or  periods.  It  is  a  continuous  process,  in  which 
each  moment  is  affected  by  the  moments  that  have 
gone  before,  and  by  the  prospective  character  of 
the  moments  that  are  to  come  after.  If  it  were 
not  for  this  fact,  the  majority  of  the  voters  of  New 
York  State,  "by  electing  a  governor  of  their  own 
way  of  thinking,"  might  not  only  put  a  limit  to 
the  income  which  any  citizen  might  possess.  It 
might  do  a  great  deal  more  besides.  It  might  enact 
a  law  which  limited  the  amount  which  any  citizen 

139 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

might  eat.  It  might  limit  everybody  to  two  ounces 
a  day.  Besides  enacting  that  no  father  should  be- 
queath his  wealth  to  his  children,  it  might  enact 
just  as  readily  that  no  father  should  have  the 
custody  of  his  children.  It  might  enact,  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  persuasions  of  some  plausible  quack, 
that  no  one  should  take  any  medicines  but  a  single 
all-curing  pill.  There  is  nothing  in  the  principles 
so  solemnly  laid  down  by  "X"  which  would  ren- 
der any  of  these  enactments  more  impossible  than 
those  which  he  himself  contemplates.  But  if  such 
enactments  were  made  by  the  so-called  all-powerful 
majority,  through  a  governor  of  their  own  way  of 
thinking,  what  would  be  the  result  ?  If  a  law  for- 
bade the  citizens  to  eat  enough  to  keep  themselves 
alive,  it  might  perhaps  be  obeyed  throughout  Mon- 
day, but  it  would  be  broken  by  Tuesday  morning. 
A  law  which  deprived  fathers  of  the  care  of  their 
own  children  might  just  as  well  be  a  law  which 
decreed  that  no  children  should  be  born.  A  law 
which  decreed  that  no  remedy  but  the  same  quack 
pill  should  be  applied  to  any  disease,  whether  chol- 
era, appendicitis,  or  small -pox,  would  be  either 
disregarded  from  the  beginning,  or  would  soon  be 
repealed  by  a  pestilence.  In  short,  if  any  one  of 
these  ridiculous  laws  were  enacted,  the  very  voters 
who  voted  for  it  would  disregard  it  as  soon  as  they 
realized  its  consequences ;  and  the  work  which  they 
did  as  legislators  they  would  tear  to  pieces  as  men. 
In  other  words,  if  we  mean,  by  legislation,  legisla- 
tion which  can  be  permanently  obeyed,  the  legis- 

140 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

lative  sovereignty  of  democracies,  which  is  so  com- 
monly spoken  of  as  supreme,  is  limited,  in  every 
direction  by  another  power  greater  than  itself ;  and 
this  is  the  double  power  of  nature  and  of  human 
nature.  Just  as  all  laws  relating  to  the  food  which 
men  are  to  eat,  and  the  drugs  by  which  their  mala- 
dies are  to  be  cured,  must  depend  on  the  natural 
qualities  of  such  and  such  physical  substances,  so 
do  the  constitution  and  propensities  of  the  concrete 
human  character  limit  legislation  generally,  and  con- 
fine it  within  certain  channels. 

This  is  what  "X"  and  similar  thinkers  forget; 
and  the  nature  of  their  error  is  very  pertinently 
illustrated  by  an  observation  of  the  English  jurist, 
Lord  Coleridge,  to  which  "X"  solemnly  refers,  as 
corroborating  him  in  his  own  wisdom.  "  The  same 
power,"  says  Lord  Coleridge,  "which  prescribes 
rules  for  the  possession  of  property  can  of  course 
alter  them ' ' ;  this  power  being  the  legislative  body 
of  whatever  country  may  be  in  question.  It  is 
easy  to  see  the  manner  in  which  Lord  Coleridge 
reasons.  Because,  in  any  country,  the  formula- 
tion and  enforcement  of  laws  has  the  will  of  the 
governing  body  as  the  proximate  cause  which 
determines  them,  it  seems  to  Lord  Coleridge  that, 
in  this  contemporary  will,  the  laws  thus  formulated 
and  enforced  have  their  ultimate  cause  also.  For 
example,  according  to  him,  the  entire  institution 
of  property  in  the  State  of  New  York  is  virtually  a 
fresh  creation  of  the  voters  from  year  to  year,  and 
has  nothing  else  behind  it.     But,  in  reality,  all  this 

141 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

business  of  formulation  and  enforcement  is  a  sec- 
ondary process,  not  a  primary  process  at  alL  Lord 
Coleridge  is  simply  inverting  the  actual  order  of 
things.  Half  the  existing  "rules  prescribed  as  to 
the  possession  of  property"  have,  for  their  ultimate 
object,  the  protection  of  family  life,  the  privacy  of 
the  private  home,  and  the  provision  made  by  par- 
ents for  their  children.  But  family  life  is  not  pri- 
marily the  creation  of  prescribed  rules.  It  is  the 
creation  of  instincts  and  affections  which  have 
developed  themselves  in  the  course  of  ages.  In- 
stead of  the  law  creating  family  life,  it  is  family 
life  which  has  gradually  called  into  being — which 
has  created  and  dictated — the  rules  and  sanctions 
protecting  it.  The  same  is  the  case  with  bequest, 
marriage,  and  so  forth.  The  conduct  of  civilized 
men  is  bound  to  conform  to  laws,  but  the  laws  must 
first  conform  to  general  human  practice.  They 
merely  give  precision  to  conduct  which  has  a  deep- 
er origin  than  legislation.  Laws,  in  fact,  may  be 
compared  to  soldier's  uniforms.  These,  within  cer- 
tain limits,  may  be  varied  indefinitely  by  a  war- 
office;  but  they  all  must  be  such  as  will  adapt 
themselves  to  the  human  body  and  its  movements. 
The  will  of  a  government  may  prescribe  that  the 
trousers  shall  be  tight  or  loose,  that  they  shall  be 
black  or  brown  or  bright  green  or  vermilion.  But 
no  government  can  prescribe  that  they  shall  be 
only  three  inches  round  the  waist,  or  that  the  sol- 
dier's sleeves  shall  start,  not  from  the  shoulders, 
but  from  the  pockets  of  the  coat-tails.     The  human 

142 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

body  is  here  a  legislator  which  is  supreme  over  all 
governments;  and  just  the  same  thing  is  true  with 
regard  to  the  human  character. 

Now,  the  curious  thing  with  regard  to  "X"  is 
that  he  is  all  along  assuming  this  fundamental  fact 
himself;  though  he  utterly  fails  to  put  two  and 
two  together,  and  see  how  this  fact  conflicts  with 
the  omnipotence  which  he  ascribes  to  legislation. 
Let  us  go  back  to  the  assertion,  which  embodies 
his  whole  practical  argument,  that  the  majority  of 
the  voters  in  New  York  State  could,  without  inter- 
fering with  the  activity  of  any  one  of  its  citizens, 
limit  incomes  in  any  manner  they  pleased,  and 
alienate  with  even  greater  ease  the  property  of 
every  man  at  his  death;  and  let  us  see  what  he 
hastens  to  say  as  the  sequel  to  this  oracular  utter- 
ance. 

These  powers  of  the  sovereign  majority,  which 
he  is  apparently  so  anxious  to  invoke,  would,  he 
says,  be  practically  much  less  formidable  in  their 
action  than  timid  persons  might  anticipate.  And 
why  would  they  be  less  formidable?  "Because," 
says  "X,"  "although  each  man,  by  reason  of  his 
manhood  alone,  has  an  equal  voice  with  every  other 
man  in  making  the  laws  governing  their  common 
country,  and  regulating  the  distribution  of  the 
common  property  .  .  .  yet  immense  and  incalcula- 
ble differences  exist  in  men's  natural  capacities  for 
rendering  honest  service  to  society.  Encourage- 
ment should,  therefore,  be  given  to  every  man  to 
use  all  the  gifts  which  he  possesses  to  the  fullest 

143 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

extent  possible;  and,  accordingly,  reasonable  ac- 
cumulations and  the  descent  of  these  should  be 
respected."  They  should,  he  says,  be  respected. 
Yes — but  for  what  reason?  Because  they  encour- 
age exceptional  men,  whose  services  are  essential 
to  society,  to  develop  and  use  their  capacities  to 
"the  fullest  extent  possible";  and  this  is  merely 
another  way  of  saying  that,  without  the  motive 
provided  by  the  possibility  of  accumulation  and 
bequest,  the  exceptional  faculties  would  not  be 
developed  or  used  at  all.  Moreover,  the  amounts 
which  may  be  accumulated  and  bequeathed,  al- 
though they  will  be  strictly  limited,  must,  "X" 
says,  be  considerable.  He  suggests  that  incomes 
should  be  allowed  up  to  forty  thousand  dollars,  and 
bequeathable  property  up  to  a  million  dollars.  And 
here  we  come  to  a  question  which  is  still  more 
pertinent  than  the  preceding.  Why  m.ust  the  per- 
missible amounts  of  income  and  of  bequeathable 
property  be  of  proportions  such  as  those  which  he 
contemplates?  Why  does  he  not  take  his  bill  and 
write  down  quickly  a  thousand  dollars  of  income 
instead  of  forty  thousand,  and  limit  bequeathable 
property  to  ten  thousand  instead  of  a  million? 
Because  he  evidently  recognizes  that  the  men  whose 
possible  services  to  society  are  "immensely  and 
incalculably  greater"  than  those  of  the  majority  of 
their  fellow-citizens  would  not  be  tempted  by  a 
reward  which,  reduced  to  its  smallest  proportions, 
would  not  be  very  largely  in  excess  of  what  was 
attainable   by   more   ordinary   exertions.     In   his 

144 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

formal  statement  of  his  case,  he  says  that  the 
amount  of  the  reward  woiild  be  entirely  determined 
by  what  ought  to  be  sufficient  for  the  purpose  in  the 
estimation  of  the  voting  majority ;  and  he  mentions 
the  sums  in  question  as  those  on  which  they  would 
probably  fix.  And  it  is,  of  course,  quite  imagina- 
ble that  the  majority,  in  making  either  these  or  any 
other  estimates,  might  be  right.  But  what  "X" 
fails  altogether  to  see  is  that,  if  the  majority  of  the 
citizens  were  right,  such  sums  would  not  be  suffi- 
cient because  the  majority  of  citizens  happened  to 
think  that  they  ought  to  be.  They  would  be  suffi- 
cient because  they  were  felt  to  be  sufficient  by  the 
minority  who  were  invited  to  earn  them,  at  whose 
feelings  the  majority  would  have  made  a  shrewd 
or  a  lucky  guess.  A  thousand  men  with  fishing- 
rods  might  meet  in  an  inn  parlor  and  vote  that 
such  and  such  flies  were  sufficient  to  attract  trout. 
But  it  lies  with  the  trout  to  determine  whether  or 
no  he  will  rise  to  them.  It  is  a  question,  not  of 
what  the  fishermen  think,  but  of  what  the  trout 
thinks;  and  the  fishermen's  thoughts  are  effective 
only  when  they  coincide  with  the  trout's. 

So  long,  then,  as  society  desires  to  get  the  best 
work  out  of  its  citizens,  and  so  long  as  some  men 
are,  in  the  words  of  "X,"  "immensely  and  incal- 
culably" more  efficient  than  the  great  mass  of  their 
fellows,  and  so  long  as  their  efficiency  requires,  as 
"X"  admits  that  it  does,  some  exceptional  reward 
to  induce  these  men  to  develop  it,  these  men  them- 
selves, in  virtue  of  their  inherent  characters,  must 

145 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

primarily  determine  what  the  reward  shall  be ;  and 
not  all  the  majorities  in  the  world,  however  unani- 
mous, could  make  a  reward  sufficient  if  the  particu- 
lar minority  in  question  did  not  feel  it  to  be  so. 
The  majority  might,  by  making  a  sufficient  reward 
unattainable,  easily  prevent  the  services  from  being 
rendered  at  all;  but,  unless  they  are  to  forego  the 
services,  the  majority  can  only  obtain  them  on 
terms  which  will  depend  on  the  men  who  are  to 
render  them. 

Now,  in  what  I  have  been  urging  thus  far — which 
practically  comes  to  this,  that  the  sovereignty  popu- 
larly ascribed  to  democratic  majorities  is  an  illusion 
— not  socialists  only,  but  other  advocates  of  popiilar 
government  also,  will  alike  be  against  me,  as  the 
promulgator  of  some  blasphemous  paradox.  It 
will  be  easy,  however,  to  show  them  that  their  ob- 
jections are  quite  mistaken,  and  that  the  excep- 
tional powers  of  dictation  which  have  just  been 
ascribed  to  a  minority  are  so  far  from  being  incon- 
sistent with  the  real  powers  of  the  majority  that 
the  latter,  when  properly  understood,  are  seen  to 
be  their  complement  and  their  counterpart.  For, 
though  socialists  and  thinkers  like  "X"  ascribe  to 
majorities  powers  which  they  do  not  possess,  we 
shall  find  that  majorities  do  actually  possess  others, 
in  some  ways  very  much  greater,  of  which  such 
thinkers  have  thus  far  taken  no  cognizance  at  all. 
I  have  said  that  majorities  can  dictate  their  own 
terms  to  majorities  which  desire  to  secure  their 
services,  the  reason  being  that  the  former  are  alone 

146 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

competent  to  determine  what  treatment  will  supply 
them  with  a  motive  to  exert  themselves.  What 
holds  good  of  minorities  as  opposed  to  majorities 
holds  good  in  essentials,  though  in  a  somewhat  dif- 
ferent form,  of  majorities  as  opposed  to  such 
minorities. 

Let  us  turn  again  to  a  matter  to  which  I  have 
referred  already — namely,  the  family  life  of  the 
citizens  of  any  race  or  nation.  This  results  from 
propensities  in  a  vast  number  of  human  beings 
which,  although  they  are  similar,  are  in  each  case 
independent.  These  propensities  give  rise  to  legis- 
lation, the  object  of  which  is  to  prescribe  rules  by 
which  their  satisfaction  may  be  made  secure;  but 
the  propensities  are  so  far  from  originating  in  legis- 
lation that  no  legislation  which  seriously  interfered 
with  them  would  be  tolerated.  Socialists  them- 
selves have  continually  admitted  this  very  thing. 
The  Italian  socialist,  Giovanni  Rossi,  for  instance, 
who  attempted  about  fifteen  years  ago  to  found  a 
socialistic  colony  in  Brazil — an  attempt  which  com- 
pletely failed — attributed  its  failure  largely  to  this 
particular  cause — namely,  the  impossibility  of  in- 
ducing the  colonists  to  conform  to  any  rules  of  the 
community  by  which  family  life  was  interfered 
with.  Here  we  have  an  example  of  democracy  in 
its  genuine  form,  rendering  powerless  what  affected 
to  be  democratic  legislation.  We  have  the  cumu- 
lative power  of  similar  human  characters  compelling 
legislation  to  limit  itself  to  what  these  characters 
spontaneously  demand.     And  now  let  us  go  a  step 

M7 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

— a  very  short  step — further.  The  family  propen- 
sities in  question  show  their  dictatorial  power,  not 
only  in  the  limitations  which  they  impose  on  posi- 
tive laws,  but  also  in  the  character  which  they 
impose  on  the  material  surroundings  of  existence, 
especially  in  the  material  structure  of  the  dwellings 
of  all  classes  except  the  lowest.  All  are  constructed 
with  a  view  to  keeping  the  family  group  united, 
and  each  family  group  separate  from  all  others. 
Further,  if  the  natural  family  propensities  thus 
affect  the  structure  of  the  dwelling,  other  propen- 
sities, more  various  in  detail,  but  in  each  case 
equally  spontaneous,  determine  what  commodities 
shall  be  put  in  it. 

And  this  fact  brings  us  back  to  our  own  more 
immediate  subject — namely,  the  power  of  the  few 
and  of  the  many  in  the  sphere  of  economic  produc- 
tion. The  man  of  exceptional  industrial  capacity 
becomes  rich  in  the  modern  world  by  producing 
goods,  or  by  rendering  services,  which  others  con- 
sume or  profit  by,  and  for  which  they  render  him 
a  return.  But,  in  order  that  they  may  take,  and 
render  him  this  return  for,  what  he  offers  them, 
the  goods  and  the  services  must  be  such  that  the 
many  desire  to  have  them.  All  the  highest  pro- 
ductive ability  that  has  ever  been  devoted  to  the 
business  of  cheapening  and  multiplying  commodi- 
ties, or  rendering  social  services,  would  be  abso- 
lutely futile  unless  these  commodities  and  services 
satisfied  tastes  or  wants  existing  in  various  sections 
of  the  community.     The  eliciting  of  such  wants  or 

148 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

tastes  depends  very  often,  and  in  progressive  com- 
munities usually,  on  a  previous  supply  of  the  com- 
modities or  services  that  minister  to  them — as  we 
see,  for  example,  in  the  case  of  tobacco,  of  the  tele- 
graph, and  of  the  bicycle;  but,  when  once  the  de- 
mands have  been  elicited,  they  are  essentially  dem- 
ocratic in  their  nature.  Each  customer  is  like  a 
voter  who  practically  gives  his  vote  for  the  kind 
of  goods  which  he  desires  to  have  supplied  to  him. 
He  gives  his  vote  under  no  compulsion.  He  is 
under  the  manipulation  of  no  party  or  wire-pull- 
er; and  the  men  by  whose  ability  the  goods  are 
cheapened  and  multiplied  are  bound  to  determine 
their  character  by  the  number  of  votes  cast  for 
them.* 

Thus,  while — so  long  as  the  productivity  of  labor 
is  intensified,  as  it  is  in  the  modern  world,  by  the 
ability  of  the  few  who  direct  labor — the  laboring 
majority  can  never  be  free  in  their  technical  ca- 
pacity of  producers,  they  are  free,  and  must  always 
remain  free,  in  respect  of  their  tastes  as  consumers. 
In  other  words,  demand  is  essentially  democratic, 

'  Mr.  G.  Wilshire,  in  his  criticism  of  the  argument,  as  stated 
by  me  in  America,  says  that,  under  the  existing  system,  the 
consumer  is  not  free  to  choose  what  goods  he  will  buy,  but 
has  them  thrust  on  him  by  the  capitalist  producer.  Yet  he, 
and  socialists  in  general,  complain  at  the  same  time  of  the 
competition  between  capitalists,  which  is  simply  a  competition 
to  supply  what  consumers  most  desire.  Here  and  there,  when 
no  competition  exists,  one  firm  can  force  its  goods,  if  they  are 
of  the  nature  of  necessaries,  on  the  local  public.  But  under 
the  existing  system  this  is  only  an  occasional  incident.  Under 
socialism  it  would  be  universal. 

n  149 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

while  supply,   in  proportion  to  its  sustained  and 
enhanced  abundance,  is  essentially  oligarchic. 

Now,  that  demand  is  essentially  democratic,  and 
depends  on  the  tastes  and  characters  of  those  by 
whom  the  demands  are  made,  nobody  will  be  in- 
clined to  deny.  But  if  we  turn  our  attention  from 
society,  taken  as  a  whole,  to  the  exceptionally  able 
minority  on  whom  the  business  of  supply  depends, 
we  shall  find  that  these  men,  in  their  turn,  form 
similarly  a  small  democracy  in  themselves,  and 
make,  as  suppliers,  their  own  demands  also — a  de- 
mand for  an  economic  reward,  or  an  amount  of 
personal  wealth,  not,  indeed,  necessarily  equal  to 
the  amount  of  wealth  produced  by  them,  but  bear- 
ing a  proportion  to  it  which  is,  in  their  own  estima- 
tion, sufficient.  This  demand  made  by  the  excep- 
tional producer  rests  on  exactly  the  same  basis  as 
does  that  of  the  average  customer.  It  rests  on  the 
tastes  and  characters  of  the  men  who  make  it ;  and 
it  is  just  as  impossible  for  the  many  to  decide  by 
legislation  that  the  few  shall  put  forth  the  whole  of 
their  exceptional  powers  for  the  sake  of  one  reward, 
when  what  they  want  is  another,  as  it  is  for  the  few 
to  make  the  many  buy  snuff  when  they  want  to- 
bacco, or  buy  green  coats  when  they  want  black.  ^ 

•  Mr.  G.  Wilshire  admits,  on  behalf  of  socialists,  that  the 
argument  of  this  chapter  is  so  far  correct  that  no  democracy 
can  make  men  of  ability  exercise  their  ability  if  they  do  not 
wish  to  do  so;  and  that  if  they  wish  for  exceptional  rewards 
they  will  be  able  to  demand  them.  A  Melba,  he  says,  under 
socialism,  would  be  able  if  she  wished  for  it,  able  to  get  prob- 
ably even  higher  remuneration  than   she  does  to-day.     But, 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

That  such  is  the  case  will,  to  those  who  may  be 
inclined  to  doubt  it,  become  more  evident  if  they 
consider  with  more  attention  than  they  are  gen- 
erally accustomed  to  exercise  what  the  main  attrac- 
tion of  great  wealth  is  for  the  men  who  in  the 
modern  world  are  the  producers  of  it  on  the  greatest 
scale.  Socialists  and  similar  reformers — the  people 
who  principally  busy  themselves  with  discussing 
what  this  attraction  is — are  the  people  who  are 
least  capable  of  forming  any  true  opinion  about  it. 
They  not  only  have,  as  a  rule,  no  experience  of 
wealth  themselves,  but  they  are  further  generically 
distinguished  by  a  deficiency  of  those  powers  that 
create  it.  They  are  like  men  with  no  muscles,  who 
reason  about  the  temperament  of  a  prize-fighter; 
and  their  conception  of  what  wealth  means  for  those 
who  produce  and  possess  it  is  apt,  in  consequence, 
to  be  of  the  most  puerile  kind.  It  is  founded,  ap- 
parently, on  their  conception  of  what  a  greedy  boy, 
without  pocket-money,  feels  when  he  stares  at  the 
tarts  lying  in  a  pastry-cook's  window.  To  them  it 
seems  that  the  desire  for  great  wealth  means  simply 
the  desire  for  purely  sensual  self-indulgence — espe- 
cially for  the  eating  and  drinking  of  expensive  food 
and  wine.  Consequently,  whenever  they  wish  to 
caricature  a  capitalist  they  invariably  represent 
him  as  a  man  with  a  huge,  protuberant  stomach. 

he  continues,  under  socialism,  such  men  and  women,  though 
they  could  get  such  rewards,  will  be  so  changed  that  they  will 
not  wish  for  them.  A  Melba  then  will  sing  for  the  mere  pleas- 
ure of  singing. 

151 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

The  folly  of  this  conception  is  sufficiently  shown  by 
the  fact  that  many  of  the  greatest  of  fortune-makers 
have,  in  their  personal  habits,  been  abstemious  and 
even  niggardly  to  a  degree  which  has  made  them 
proverbial ;  and  that,  even  in  the  case  of  those  who 
value  personal  luxury,  the  maximum  of  self-in- 
dulgence which  any  single  human  organism  can 
appreciate,  is  obtainable  by  a  hundredth  part  of 
the  fortunes  for  the  production  of  which  such  men 
work.  The  real  secret  of  the  attraction  which 
wealth  has  for  those  who  create  it  lies  in  the  fact 
that  wealth  is  simply  a  form  of  power.  These  men 
are  made  conscious  by  experience,  as  less  gifted 
men  are  not,  that  they  can,  by  the  exercise  of  their 
own  mental  energies,  add  indefinitely  to  the  wealth- 
producing  forces  of  the  community.  They  feel  the 
machine  respond  to  their  own  exceptional  manage- 
ment of  it;  they  see  the  output  of  wealth  varied 
and  multiplied  at  their  will;  and  thus  the  results 
of  their  specialized  power  as  producers  are  neither 
more  nor  less  than  this  same  internal  power  con- 
verted into  an  external,  an  indeterminate  and  imi- 
versalized  form ;  and  the  reason  why  they  will  never 
produce  wealth  merely  in  order  to  be  deprived  of  it 
is  that  no  one  will  exercise  power  merely  in  order 
to  lose  it,  and  allow  it  to  pass  into  the  hands  of  other 
people.  These  men,  as  experience,  especially  in 
America,  shows  us,  are  constantly  willing  to  use 
this  power  for  the  benefit  of  their  kind  generally; 
but  this  is  no  more  a  sign  that  they  would  be  willing 
to  allow  it  to  be  forcibly  taken  from  them  than  the 

^52 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

fact  that  a  man  is  willing  to  give  a  dollar  to  a  beggar 
in  the  street  is  a  sign  that  he  would  allow  the  beggar 
to  steal  it  out  of  his  waistcoat- pocket. 

So  long  as  differences  in  personal  power  exist, 
especially  in  such  power  as  affects  the  material 
circumstances  of  mankind,  these  differences  in  pow- 
er, let  governments  take  what  form  they  please, 
will  necessarily  assert  and  embody  themselves  in 
the  very  structure  of  human  society ;  and  socialists 
are  only  able  to  obscure  this  fact  from  anybody 
either  by  a  childish  theory  of  modern  production 
which  they  themselves  are  now  repudiating,  or  else 
by  a  psychology  even  more  laboriously  childish, 
which  would  at  once  be  exposed  were  it  tested  by 
so  much  as  six  months'  experience.  An  interesting 
admission  of  the  truth  of  this  may  be  found  in  an 
unlikely  place — namely,  a  work  written  some  years 
ago  by  a  socialist  of  considerable  talent,  which 
shows  how  the  errors  of  at  least  a  number  of  social- 
ists are  due,  not  to  any  defect  in  their  reasoning 
powers,  as  such,  but  to  a  want  of  balanced  knowl- 
edge of  human  nature  in  general,  a  want  which  in 
certain  respects  renders  their  reasoning  futile.  The 
work  to  which  I  refer  is  a  work  by  a  socialistic 
novelist,  who  was  also  an  accomplished  naturalist — 
the  late  Mr.  Grant  Allen.  It  is  called  The  Woman 
Who  Did. 

The  immediate  object  of  the  writer  was  to  ex- 
hibit the  institution  of  marriage  as  the  cause  of 
what  he  was  pleased  to  regard  as  woman's  degra-. 
dation  and  slavery ;  and  his  heroine  is  a  young  lady 

153 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  highly  respectable  parentage,  who  proposes  to 
regenerate  womanhood  by  living  with,  and  having 
children  by,  a  man,  without  submitting  to  the 
humiliation  of  any  legal  bond.  She  accomplishes 
her  purpose,  and  has  a  daughter,  whose  position, 
under  our  false  civilization,  becomes  so  disagreeable 
in  consequence  of  her  illegitimate  birth,  that  the 
mother  at  last  commits  suicide,  in  order  to  deliver 
her  from  the  presence  of  such  an  embarrassing 
parent.  In  the  author's  view  she  is  a  martyr, 
and  a  model  for  immediate  imitation.  Ludicrous, 
however,  as  the  book  is  in  its  main  scheme  and 
in  its  object,  the  author  shows  great  acuteness  in 
a  number  of  his  incidental  observations.  He  is, 
for  example,  constantly  insisting  on  the  fact  that 
the  institution  of  private  property,  which  socialism 
aims  at  revolutionizing,  is  merely  one  embodiment 
of  a  general  principle  of  individualism  of  which 
marriage  and  the  family  are  another,  and  that  the 
two  stand  and  fall  together.  But  an  admission 
yet  more  important  than  this  is  as  follows:  So 
that  nothing  may  be  wanting  to  the  bitterness  of 
the  heroine's  sublime  martyrdom,  the  author  rep- 
resents her  daughter — and  he  does  this  with  con- 
siderable skill  —  as  developing  from  her  earliest 
childhood  all  those  tastes  and  prejudices  (an  in- 
stinctive sympathy  with  those  ordinary  motives 
and  standards)  against  which  the  mother's  whole 
life,  and  her  education  of  her  daughter,  had  been 
at  war.  "Herminia,"  says  Mr.  Allen,  "had  done 
her  best"  to  indoctrinate  the  child  with  the  pure 

154 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

milk  of  the  emancipating  social  gospel;  "but  the 
child  herself  seemed  to  hark  back,  of  internal  con- 
gruity,  to  the  lower  and  vulgarer  moral  plane  of 
her  remoter  ancestry.  There  is,"  he  proceeds,  "no 
more  silly  and  persistent  error  than  the  belief  of 
parents  that  they  can  influence  to  any  appreciable 
degree  the  moral  ideas  and  impulses  of  their  chil- 
dren. These  things  have  their  springs  in  the  bases 
of  character;  they  are  the  flower  of  individuality; 
and  they  cannot  be  altered  after  birth  by  the  fool- 
ishness of  preaching."  Let  us  read  this  passage, 
with  the  alteration  of  only  a  word  or  two,  and  it 
forms  an  admirable  criticism  of  the  more  recent 
speculations  of  the  party  to  which  Mr.  Allen  be- 
longed. There  is  no  more  silly  and  persistent  error 
on  the  part  of  socialists  than  the  belief  that  they 
can  influence  to  any  appreciable  degree  the  moral 
ideas  and  impulses  of  the  citizens  of  any  commu- 
nity, or  that  these  things,  which  are  the  flower  of 
congenital  individuality,  can  be  altered  after  birth 
by  the  foolishness  of  socialism. 

But  the  arguments  at  the  service  of  socialism 
are  not  exhausted  yet.  Even  if  voting  majorities 
should  be  unable  to  transform  human  nature,  that 
men  of  power  shall  become  willing  to  exert  their 
power  only  in  order  that  they  may  be  deprived  of 
it,  there  is  a  class  of  socialists  who  declare  that 
what  is  impossible  with  mere  human  democracy, 
will  be  rendered  possible  by  the  divine  influence  of 
a  rightly  preached  Christianity.  To  Christian  so- 
cialists,  as  such,   I  have  as  yet  made  no  special 

155 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

reference;  nor  will  it  be  necessary  now  to  be  very 
prolix  in  our  dealings  with  them;  but  in  their 
attitude  and  their  equipment  for  the  task  of  effect- 
ing an  economic  revolution,  they  throw  so  strong 
a  light  on  the  character  of  contemporary  socialism 
generally  that  a  brief  consideration  of  their  gospel 
will  be  interesting  and  highly  instructive,  and  will 
fitly  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  of  this  part  of  our 
argument. 


CHAPTER   XI 

CHRISTIAN    SOCIALISM     AS     A    SUBSTITUTE     FOR 
SECULAR    DEMOCRACY 

The  meaning  of  Christian  socialism,  as  restated  to-day  by 
a  typical  writer. 

His  just  criticism  of  the  fallacy  underlying  modem  ideas  of 
democracy.  The  iinpossibility  of  equalizing  unequal  men  by 
political  means. 

Christian  socialism  teaches,  he  says,  that  the  abler  men 
should  make  themselves  equal  to  ordinary  men  by  surrendering 
to  them  the  products  of  their  own  ability,  or  else  by  abstaining 
trom  its  exercise. 

The  author's  ignorance  of  the  nature  of  the  modem  industrial 
process.     His  idea  of  steel. 

He  confuses  the  production  of  wealth  on  a  great  scale  with 
the  acquisition  of  wealth  when  produced. 

The  only  really  productive  ability  which  he  distinctly  rec- 
ognizes is  that  of  the  speculative  inventor. 

He  declares  that  inventors  never  wish  to  profit  personally 
by  their  inventions.  Let  the  great  capitalists,  he  says,  who 
merely  monopolize  inventions,  imitate  the  self-abnegation  of 
the  inventors,  and  Christian  socialism  will  become  a  fact. 

The  confusion  which  reigns  in  the  minds  of  sentimentalists 
like  the  author  here  quoted.  Their  inability  to  see  complex 
facts  and  principles,  in  their  connected  integrity,  as  they  are. 
Such  persons  herein  similar  to  devisers  of  perpetual  motions 
and  systems  for  defeating  the  laws  of  chance  at  a  roulette- 
table. 

All  logical  socialistic  conclusions  drawn  from  premises  in 
which  some  vital  truth  or  principle  is  omitted.     Omission  in 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

the  premises  of  the  earlier  socialists.     Corresponding  omission 
in  the  premises  of  the  socialists  of  to-day. 

Origin  of  the  confusion  of  though  characteristic  of  Christian 
as  of  all  other  socialists.  Temperamental  inability  to  under- 
stand the  complexities  of  economic  life.  This  inability  further 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that,  with  few  exceptions,  socialists 
themselves  are  absolutely  incompetent  as  producers.  Certain 
popular  contentions  with  regard  to  modem  economic  life, 
urged  by  socialists,  but  not  peculiar  to  socialism,  still  remain 
to  be  considered  in  the  following  chapters. 

Christian  socialism,  as  a  doctrine  which  is 
preached  to-day,  might,  for  anything  that  its 
name  can  tell  us  to  the  contrary,  be  as  different 
from  ordinary  socialism  as  is  Christian  Science  from 
secular — as  the  science  of  Mrs.  Eddy  is  from  the 
science  of  Mr.  Edison.  We  can  judge  of  it  only 
by  examining  the  utterances  of  its  leading  ex- 
ponents. For  this  reason,  although  I  had  long 
been  familiar  with  the  utterances  of  persons  who 
call  themselves  Christian  socialists  in  England,  I 
felt  bound  to  decline  an  invitation  to  discuss  the 
subject  in  America,  unless  I  could  be  furnished 
with  some  recent  and  formal  version  of  the  gospel 
as  it  is  preached  there.  Accordingly  there  was  sent 
to  me  the  precise  kind  of  document  I  desired.  It 
formed  the  principal  article  in  a  journal  called  The 
Christian  Socialist.  Its  author  was  a  clergyman,* 
and  it  was  entitled  "The  Gospel  for  To-day."  It 
was  what  I  expected  that  it  would  be.     It  repro- 

'  While  these  pages  were  being  corrected  for  the  press,  a 
number  of  utterances  have  been  made  by  English  clerics — 
Episcopalian,  Episcopal,  and  Nonconformist — precisely  similar 
in  purpose  and  spirit  to  those  of  the  author  here  quoted. 

158 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

duced  in  almost  every  particular  the  thoughts  and 
moods  distinctive  of  Christian  socialists  in  England ; 
and  this  article  I  will  here  take  as  a  text. 

The  writer,  exhibiting  a  candor  which  many  of 
his  secular  brethren  would  do  well  to  imitate, 
starts  with  an  attack  on  all  existing  forms  of 
democracy,  which  are  all,  he  says,  based  on  a  pro- 
found and  fatal  fallacy.  This  is  the  assumption 
that  all  men  are  born  equal,  from  which  assump- 
tion the  practical  conclusion  is  deduced  that  the 
best  state  of  society  is  one  which  will  allow  each  of 
these  so-called  equal  beings  to  work  out  his  own 
happiness  as  best  he  can  for  himself,  with  the  min- 
imum of  interference  from  his  fellow -citizens  or 
from  the  law.  Now  if,  says  our  author,  men  were 
born  equal  in  reality,  such  an  individualistic  de- 
mocracy might  perhaps  work  well  enough.  But 
men  are  not  born  equal.  The  root  of  the  difficulty 
lies  here.  In  the  economic  sense,  as  in  all  others, 
some  men  are  incomparably  more  able  than  the 
great  majority  of  their  fellows,  and  even  among 
the  exceptionally  able,  some  are  much  abler  than 
the  others.  Consequently  if  the  principles  of 
modern  individualistic  democracy,  and  modern 
individualistic  economics  are  right,  according  to 
which  the  main  motive  of  each  should  be  to  do 
the  best  for  himself  with  his  own  powers  that  he 
can — "if  it  is  duty  to  compete,  if  competition  is 
the  life  of  trade,  then  the  battle  for  self  must  ever 
go  grimly  on.  The  strong  must  subdue  the  weak, 
the  rich  the  poor,  the  able  the  unable.     Upon  this 

159 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

basis  the  millionaire  and  the  multi-millionaire  have 
a  perfect  right  to  roll  up  their  untold  millions,  even 
as  the  working-man  has  a  right  to  seek  the  highest 
wages  that  he  can  get.  All  in  different  ways  are 
seeking  their  own;  and  the  keenest  competitors 
are  the  best  men.  The  prizes  must  go  to  the 
strongest  and  the  shrewdest.  It  is  the  survival  of 
the  fittest." 

Such  being  the  case,  then,  asks  the  writer,  what 
does  Christian  socialism  aim  at?  It  does  not  aim 
at  making  men  equal  in  respect  of  their  ability, 
for  to  do  this  would  be  quite  impossible;  but  it 
aims  at  producing  an  equality  of  a  practical  kind, 
by  inducing  the  men  whose  ability  is  most  efficient 
to  forego  all  personal  claims  which  are  founded  on 
their  own  exceptional  powers,  so  that  the  wealth 
which  is  at  present  secured  by  these  powers  for 
themselves,  may  in  the  future  be  divided  among 
the  mass  of  their  less  able  brethren. 

Thus  the  crucial  change  which  the  Christian  so- 
cialists would  accomplish,  is  identical  with  that  con- 
templated by  their  secular  allies  or  rivals.  But  the 
more  completely  it  is  invested  with  a  definitely  relig- 
ious quality,  the  more  lopsided,  unstable,  and  self- 
stultifying  is  this  change  seen  to  be ;  the  more  obvious 
becomes  the  absurdity  of  proposing  to  reorganize  the 
entire  business  of  the  world  on  the  basis  of  a  con- 
version de  luxe,  which  is  to  be  the  privilege  of  the 
few  only,  while  the  many  are  not  only  debarred, 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  from  practising  the 
renunciation  in  which  the  few  are  to  find  eternal  life, 

1 60 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

but  are  actually  urged  to  cherish  their  existing  ec- 
onomic concupiscence,  and  raise  it  to  a  pitch  of  in- 
tensity which  it  never  has  reached  before.  The  com- 
petent, to  whose  energies  the  riches  of  the  world  are 
due,  are  to  put  these  riches  away  from  them  as 
though  they  were  food  offered  by  the  devil.  The 
incompetent,  with  thankless  but  perpetually  open 
mouths,  are  to  swallow  this  same  food  as  though 
it  were  the  bread  from  heaven.  In  other  words, 
according  to  our  Christian  socialist,  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  involved  in  the  enjoyment 
of  riches,  is  not  the  enjoyment  of  material  super- 
fluities itself,  but  only  the  enjoyment  of  them  by 
men  who  have  been  at  the  trouble  of  producing 
them. 

That  this  is  what  the  message  of  Christian 
socialism  comes  to,  little  as  those  who  deliver  it 
realize  the  fact  themselves,  is  shown  by  an  illustra- 
tion obtruded  on  us  by  the  author  of  "The  Gospel 
for  To-day. ' '  The  evils  of  the  existing  situation,  and 
its  remoteness  from  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  are,  he 
says,  exemplified  in  a  very  special  way  by  the  pres- 
ent position  of  the  clergy.  "  If  we  churchmen,"  he 
says,  "  want  money  for  our  own  purposes,  we  have 
to  go  to  the  trust  magnates  and  kneel.  We  have 
to  kneel  to  'the  steel  kings  and  the  oil  kings,' 
merely  because  they  are  rich  men."  Now  how 
would  Christian  socialism  alter  a  state  of  things 
like  this  ?  Let  us  consider  precisely  what  it  is  that 
our  Christian  socialist  complains  about.  He  ob- 
viously does  not  mean  that  he  and  his  brother 

i6i 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

clergymen  have  to  approach  the  trust  magnates  on 
their  knees.  The  utmost  he  can  mean  is  that,  if 
they  want  these  men  to  give  them  money,  they 
have  to  ask  for  it  as  a  gift,  and  presumably  make, 
when  it  is  given,  some  acknowledgment  to  the 
donors.  This  it  is  which  evidently  sticks  in  the 
stomach  of  the  humble  follower  of  Christ  whose 
self -portraiture  we  are  now  considering;  for,  if  we 
confine  ourselves  to  the  Christian  element  in  his 
teaching,  he  proposes  to  alter  the  existing  situation 
only  by  kindling  in  the  "trust  magnates"  such  a 
fire  of  Christian  philanthropy  that  they  will  have 
given  him  all  he  wants  before  he  has  had  time  to 
ask  for  it,  thus  exonerating  him  from  the  duty  of 
saying  " Thank  you"  for  what  he  owes  to  another's 
goodness,  and  enabling  him  to  offer  to  the  Lord 
that  which  has  cost  him  nothing. 

And  what  the  author  of  "  The  Gospel  for  To-day" 
urges  on  behalf  of  himself  and  his  clerical  brethren 
is  precisely  what  he  urges  on  behalf  of  the  less  com- 
petent majority  generally.  Neither  on  them  nor 
on  the  Christian  clergy  does  the  gospel  of  Christian 
socialism  urge  the  duty  of  making  any  new  sacri- 
fice, or  any  new  exertion,  moral  or  physical,  for 
themselves.  Just  as  the  clergy  are  to  learn  no 
more  of  business  than  they  know  now,  but  are  to  be 
relieved  of  the  necessity  for  all  prudence  as  to  ways 
and  means,  so  is  the  ordinary  laborer  to  work  no 
longer,  no  harder,  and  no  better  than  he  does  now. 
On  the  contrary,  his  hours  of  labor  are  to  become 
ever  less  and  less,  and  at  the  same  time  he  is  to 

162 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

receive  ever  greater  and  greater  wages.  These  are 
to  be  drawn  from  the  products,  not  of  himself  but 
of  his  neighbors;  and  although  he  will  owe  them 
solely  to  the  virtue  which  his  neighbor  exercises,  he 
is,  according  to  the  Christian  socialist  programme, 
to  demand  them  as  though  his  own  incompetence 
gave  him  a  sacred  right  to  them. 

Now,  apart  from  the  fact  that  this  gospel  does 
resemble  the  Christian  in  declaring  that,  while 
salvation  can  be  achieved  only  by  sacrifice,  and 
that  so  far  as  the  majority  are  concerned  their 
sacrifice  must  be  strictly  vicarious,  we  might  well 
pause  to  inquire  how  either  of  its  two  messages — 
that  of  economic  asceticism  for  the  few,  and  of 
economic  concupiscence  for  the  many — has  any 
relation  to  the  gospel  of  Christ  at  all.  According 
to  any  reasonable  interpretation  of  the  words  and 
spirit  of  Christ,  a  laborer's  desire  to  enjoy  the 
utmost  that  he  himself  produces  is  no  less  legiti- 
mate than  natural;  but  it  hardly  ranks  as  one  of 
the  highest  Christian  virtues.  How,  we  might  ask, 
is  it  to  acquire  this  latter  character  by  being  turned 
into  a  desire  for  what  is  produced  by  other  people  ? 
Again,  on  the  other  hand,  though  according  to  most 
of  the  churches  Christ  did  not  condemn  the  posses- 
sion of  superfluous  wealth  as  such,  he  certainly  did 
not  teach  that  the  possession  of  it  was  generally 
necessary  to  salvation.  It  might  therefore  be  justly 
urged,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  few,  that  in 
proportion  as  Christ's  valuation  of  this  transitory 
life  was  accepted  by  them,  the  duty  of  melting 

163 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

down  their  own  vases  and  candelabra  in  order  that 
every  workman's  spoon  might  have  a  thin  plating 
of  silver  on  it,  would  constantly  seem  less  and  less, 
instead  of  more  and  more  imperative.  All  this 
might  be  urged,  and  more  to  the  same  effect;  but 
we  will  content  ourselves  with  considering  the 
matter  under  its  purely  practical  aspect,  and  asking 
how  any  Christian  clergymen — men  presumably 
sane  and  educated — can  propose,  whether  their 
programme  be  really  Christian  or  no,  to  reorganize 
society  on  the  basis  of  a  moral  conversion  which  is 
confined  to  the  few  only — which  would  exact  from 
the  able  minority  the  maximum  of  effort  and  morti- 
fication, and  secure  the  maximum  of  idleness  and 
self-indulgence  for  the  rest  of  the  human  race  ? 

To  this  question  it  may  be  said  that  there  are 
two  answers.  Admirable  in  character  as  are  multi- 
tudes of  the  Christian  clergy,  nobody  will  contend 
that  all  of  them  are  beyond  reproach;  nor  will  any 
such  claim  be  made  for  all  those  of  them  who  pro- 
fess socialism.  And  for  some  of  this  body  it  is 
hardly  open  to  doubt  that  the  preaching  of  social- 
ism is  nothing  better  than  a  species  of  ecclesiastical 
electioneering.  In  the  language  of  the  political 
wire-puller,  it  affords  them  a  good  "cry"  with 
which  to  go  to  the  people.  Why,  they  say  in  effect, 
should  you  listen  to  the  agitator  in  the  street,  when 
we  can  give  you  something  just  as  good  from  the 
pulpit?  What  the  message  really  means  which 
they  thus  undertake  to  deliver,  they  make  no  effort 
to  understand.     It   will  attract,   or  at  least  they 

164 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

think  so;  and  for  the  moment  this  is  enough  for 
them.  Having  probably  emptied  their  churches 
by  talking  traditional  nonsense,  they  are  willing  to 
fill  them  by  talking  nonsense  that  has  not  even  the 
merit  of  being  traditional.  We  will  not  linger, 
however,  over  the  case  of  men  like  these.  We  will 
turn  to  that  of  others  who  are  morally  very  much 
more  respectable,  and  whose  condition  of  mind, 
moreover,  is  very  much  more  instructive.  Of  these 
we  may  take  the  author  of  "  The  Gospel  for  To-day" 
as  a  type.  He,  we  may  assume,  advocates  his 
socialistic  programme,  not  because  he  thinks  that 
to  do  so  is  a  shrewd  clerical  manoeuvre,  but  because 
he  honestly  believes  that  his  programme  is  at  once 
Christian  and  practicable.  How  does  it  come  about, 
then,  that  an  educated  man  like  himself  can  believe 
in,  and  devote  himself  to  preaching,  doctrines  so 
visionary  and  preposterous?  Let  us  examine  his 
arguments  more  minutely,  and  we  shall  presently 
find  our  answer. 

By  his  vigorous  denunciation  of  the  doctrine 
that  all  men  are  born  equal,  he  shows  us  that  he 
is  capable  to  a  certain  extent  of  seeing  things  as 
they  are.  But  he  sees  them  from  a  distance  only, 
as  though  they  were  a  range  of  distant  mountains 
whose  aspect  is  falsely  simplified  and  constantly 
changed  by  clouds,  and  of  whose  actual  configu- 
ration he  has  no  idea  whatever.  Thus  when  he 
contemplates  the  inequalities  of  men's  economic 
powers,  these  appear  to  him  alternately  in  two  dif- 
ferent forms — as  genuine  powers  of  production  and 
"  165 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

as  powers  of  mere  seizure  —  without  his  discern- 
ing where  in  actual  Hfe  the  operation  of  the  one 
ends  and  the  operation  of  the  other  begins;  and, 
though  for  a  certain  special  purpose  he  admits,  as 
we  shall  see  presently,  that  some  able  men  are  able 
in  the  sense  of  being  exceptionally  productive,  his 
thoughts  and  his  feelings  alike  through  the  larger 
part  of  his  argument  are  dominated  by  the  idea 
that  ability  is  merely  acquisitive.  This  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  the  two  great  productive  enter- 
prises which  he  singles  out  as  typical  of  modern 
wealth  -  getting  generally  are  held  up  by  him  as 
examples  of  acquisition  pure  and  simple.  "The 
steel  kings,"  he  says,  "did  not  invent  steel.  The 
oil  kings  did  not  invent  oil."  These  are  the  gifts 
of  nature,  which  nature  offers  to  all;  but  the 
strong  men  abuse  their  strength  by  pushing  for- 
ward and  seizing  them,  and  compelling  their  weak- 
er brethren  to  pay  them  a  tribute  for  their  use. 
Steel  and  refined  oil  he  evidently  looks  upon  as 
two  natural  products.  He  has  no  suspicion  that, 
as  any  school -boy  could  have  told  him,  steel  is 
an  artificial  metal  which,  as  manufactured  to-day, 
is  one  of  the  most  elaborate  triumphs  of  modern 
industrial  genius.  As  to  the  oil  by  the  light  of 
which  he  doubtless  writes  his  sermons,  he  appar- 
ently thinks  of  it  as  existing  fit  for  use  in  a  lake, 
and  ready  to  be  dipped  up  by  everybody  in  nice 
little  tin  cans,  if  only  the  oil  kings,  having  got  to 
the  lake  first,  did  not  by  their  superior  strength 
frighten  other  people  away.     Of  the  actual  history 

i66 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  the  production  of  usable  oil,  of  the  vast  and 
marvellous  system  by  which  it  is  brought  within 
reach  of  the  consumers,  of  the  by-products  which 
reduce  its  price — all  of  them  the  results  of  concen- 
trated economic  ability,  and  requiring  from  week 
to  week  its  constant  and  renewed  application — ^the 
author  of  "The  Gospel  for  To-day"  apparently 
knows  nothing.  The  oil  kings  and  the  steel  kings, 
according  to  his  conception  of  them,  need  merely 
refrain  from  the  exercise  of  their  only  distinctive 
power — that  is  to  say,  an  exceptional  power  of 
seizing;  and  every  Christian  socialist  in  New  York 
and  elsewhere  will  have  the  same  oil  in  his  lamps 
that  he  has  now,  and  a  constant  supply  of  cutlery 
and  all  other  forms  of  hardware,  the  sole  difference 
being  that  he  will  get  them  at  half-price  or  for 
nothing,  and  have  the  money  thus  saved  to  spend 
upon  new  enjoyments.  And  his  conception  of 
ability,  as  connected  with  the  output  of  steel  and 
oil,  is  his  conception  of  ability  as  applied  to  the 
production  of  goods  generally. 

He  makes,  however,  one  exception.  There  is,  he 
admits,  one  form  of  ability  which  does  actually  add 
to  the  wealth  of  the  modern  world,  and  may  possi- 
bly be  credited  with  producing  the  largest  part  of  it. 
This  is  the  faculty  of  invention.  Here,  at  last,  we 
seem  to  be  listening  to  the  language  of  sober  sense. 
But  let  us  see  what  follows.  Inventors,  our  au- 
thor proceeds,  being  the  types  of  exceptional  ability 
which  is  really  beneficent  and  productive,  are  pre- 
cisely the  men  who  afford  us  our  surest  grounds  for 

167 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

believing  in  the  possibility  of  that  moral  conversion 
which  socialism  proposes  to  effect  among  able  men 
at  large.  For  what,  he  says,  as  a  fact  do  we  find 
the  inventors  doing?  They  invent,  he  says,  for 
the  pure  love  of  inventing,  or  else  from  a  desire  to 
do  good  to  their  fellow-creatures.  The  thought  of 
money  for  themselves  never  enters  into  their  minds. 
The  selfish  desire  for  money  makes  its  appearance 
only  when  the  strong  man  whose  ability  is  merely 
acquisitive  thrusts  himself  on  the  scene,  buys  the 
inventors'  inventions  up,  and  then  proceeds  "to 
work  them  for  all  they  are  worth."  These  mere 
seizers  of  wealth,  these  appropriators  of  the  inven- 
tions of  others,  need  but  to  learn  a  lesson  of  abne- 
gation which  the  inventors  have  learned  already, 
or  rather  a  lesson  which  is  easier;  for  while  these 
noble  men,  the  inventors,  have  no  wish  to  take 
what  they  produce,  the  majority  of  able  men,  such 
as  the  steel  kings  and  the  oil  kings,  need  merely 
forbear  to  take.  Competition,  in  short,  as  it  ac- 
tually exists  to-day — ^the  competition  which  Chris- 
tian socialism  will  abolish — is  simply  a  competi- 
tion in  taking;  and  in  order  to  abolish  it,  the 
strong  men,  when  they  have  taken  a  fair  share, 
have  but  to  stand  aside,  to  become  as  though  they 
were  weak,  and  so  give  others  a  chance  equal  to 
their  own. 

Here,  indeed,  we  have  a  conception,  or  rather  a 
vague  picture,  of  the  facts  of  modern  industry,  and 
of  human  nature  as  connected  with  it,  which  is 
worthy  of  a  man  from  dreamland.     Every  detail 

i68 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

mentioned  is  false.  Every  essential  detail  is  omit- 
ted. In  the  first  place,  the  disinterested  inventor, 
from  whose  behavior  our  author  reasons,  is  purely 
a  figment  of  his  own  clerical  brain.  Inventors  in 
actual  life,  as  every  one  knows  who  has  had  occa- 
sion to  deal  with  them,  are  generally  distinguished 
by  an  insane  desire  for  money,  by  the  wildest  over- 
estimates of  the  wealth  which  their  inventions  will 
ultimately  bring  them,  or  by  a  greed  which  will 
sell  them  for  a  trifle,  provided  this  be  paid  imme- 
diately. In  the  second  place,  inventions,  even  the 
greatest,  so  long  as  they  represent  the  power  of 
invention  merely,  are  utterly  deficient  in  all  prac- 
tical value.  So  long  as  they  exist  nowhere  except 
in  the  author's  brain,  or  drawings,  or  in  descrip- 
tions, or  even  in  the  form  of  models,  they  might, 
so  far  as  the  world  is  concerned,  have  never  existed 
at  all.  In  the  former  cases  they  are  dreams;  in 
the  last  case  they  are  toys.  They  are  brought  down 
into  the  arena  of  actual  life  only  when,  like  souls 
provided  with  bodies,  they  cease  to  be  ideas  or 
toys,  and  become  machines  or  contrivances  manu- 
factured on  a  commercial  basis;  and  in  order  to 
effect  successfully  this  practical  transformation, 
countless  processes  and  countless  faculties  are  in- 
volved other  than  those  comprised  in  intellectual 
invention  itself. 

There  are  cases,  no  doubt,  in  which  the  practical 
talents  necessary  for  realizing  an  invention  and  the 
faculty  of  invention  itself  coexist  in  the  same  man ; 
but  the  inventor,  when  this  happens,  is  not  an  in- 

169 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

ventor  only.  He  is  not  only  a  master  of  ideas;  he 
is  a  master  of  things  and  men.  Such  a  combina- 
tion is,  however,  far  from  common.  As  a  rule,  if 
his  inventions  are  to  be  of  any  use  to  the  world, 
the  inventor  must  ally  himself  with  men  of  an- 
other type,  and  these  are  the  very  men  whom  the 
author  of  "The  Gospel  for  To-day"  conceives 
of  as  simply  monopolizing  and  "  working  for  all 
they  are  worth"  contrivances  which  would  other- 
wise have  been  given  to  the  world  gratis.  He  does 
not  see  that,  if  men  such  as  the  steel  kings  and  the 
oil  kings  did  not  work  inventions  for  all  they  are 
worth,  the  inventions  themselves  would  be  prac- 
tically worth  nothing. 

Let  the  reader  reflect  on  the  astounding  ignorance 
of  the  world,  and  especially  of  the  world  of  industry, 
which  is  betrayed  with  so  much  naivete  by  this 
socialist  of  the  Christian  pulpit.  He  knows  so 
little  of  the  commonest  facts  of  history  that  he 
looks  upon  steel  as  a  ready-made  product  of  nature, 
and  all  the  mills  of  the  steel  trust  as  merely  a  means 
of  monopolizing  knives,  bridges,  rails,  and  locomo- 
tive-engines, which  the  citizens  of  America  would 
otherwise  be  able  to  take  at  will,  like  a  bevy  of 
school-children  helping  themselves  from  a  heap  of 
apples.  He  imagines  that  inventions,  as  they  form 
themselves  in  the  head  of  the  inventor,  leap  direct 
into  use,  without  any  intervening  process;  while 
the  inventor  himself  is  a  being  so  superior  to  the 
world  he  works  in,  that  the  rapture  of  being 
allowed  to  work  for  it  is  the  only  reward  he  covets, 

170 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

that  he  has  never  dreamed  of  such  selfish  things  as 
profits,  and  does  not  even  know  the  meaning  of  a 
patent  or  a  founder's  share ;  and  that  the  oil  kings 
and  the  steel  kings  and  all  other  able  men,  will 
save  society  by  following  in  the  footsteps  of  this 
chimera. 

Such  are  the  wild,  childish,  and  disconnected 
ideas  entertained  by  our  clerical  author  of  the  world 
which  he  proposes  to  reform,  and  he  is  in  this  re- 
spect not  peculiar.  On  the  contrary  he  is  a  most 
favorable  type  of  Christian  socialists  generally ;  and 
Christian  socialists,  in  respect  of  their  mental  and 
moral  equipment,  are  simply  secular  socialists  of 
the  more  modern  and  educated  type,  with  their 
ignorances  and  credulities  accentuated,  but  not 
otherwise  altered,  by  the  solemnities  of  religious 
language,  and  a  vague  religious  sentiment  which 
achieves  a  facile  intensity  because  it  is  never 
restrained  by  fact. 

Socialists,  in  short,  of  all  schools,  are  socialists 
because  they  are  ignorant  of,  or  fail  to  apprehend, 
certain  facts  or  principles  of  nature  and  of  human 
nature  which  are  essential  to  the  complicated  proc- 
ess of  modern  productive  industry ;  or  it  is  perhaps 
a  truer  way  of  putting  the  case  to  say  that  they 
could  not  be  socialists  unless  they  were  thus  igno- 
rant. In  this  they  resemble  the  devisers  of  per- 
petual motions,  or  scientific  and  infallible  systems 
for  breaking  the  bank  at  a  roulette -table.  In  so 
far  as  they  are  socialists — that  is  to  say,  in  so  far 
as  they  differ  from  other  reformers — they  are  men 

171 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

aiming  at  something  which  is  in  its  nature  imprac- 
ticable; and  in  order  to  represent  it  to  themselves 
and  others  as  practicable,  they  must  necessarily 
ignore  or  fail  to  understand  something  which,  in 
actual  life,  stands  in  the  way  of  its  being  so.  The 
perpetual-motionist  believes  that  a  perpetual  mo- 
tion is  practicable,  because  he  fails  to  see  that  out 
of  no  machine  whatever  is  it  possible  to  get  more 
force  than  is  put  into  it,  and  that  one  pound- weight 
will  not  wind  up  another.  The  system-monger 
sees  that  if  a  succession  of  similar  stakes  are  placed 
on  red  or  black,  or  any  one  of  the  thirty-six  num- 
bers, the  bank  always  has  zero  in  its  favor;  but  by 
placing  a  number  of  stakes  simultaneously  in  in- 
tricate combinations,  or  by  graduating  them  ac- 
cording to  results,  he  imagines  that  he  can  invert 
the  situation,  when  all  he  can  do  is  to  disguise  it. 
He  often  disguises  it  most  effectually;  but  in  the 
long  run  he  does  no  more.  Like  a  protuberance  in 
an  air  cushion,  which  if  pushed  down  in  one  place 
reappears  in  another,  the  original  advantage  of  the 
bank  infallibly  ends  in  reasserting  itself.  The 
system-monger  fails  to  see  this  for  one  reason  only 
— that,  having  disguised,  he  thinks  that  he  has 
eliminated,  a  fundamental  fact  of  the  situation. 
Socialists,  in  so  far  as  they  are  socialists,  reason  in 
the  same  way.  Though  most  of  them  now  recog- 
nize, like  the  author  of  "The  Gospel  for  To-day," 
that  the  economic  efficiencies  of  men  are  in  the 
highest  degree  unequal,  they  propose  out  of  an 
inequality  of  functions  to  produce  an  equality  of 

172 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

conditions.  The  details  of  the  changes  by  which 
they  propose  to  effect  this  result,  or  the  grounds  on 
which  they  seek  to  represent  this  result  as  possible, 
vary  like  the  details  of  the  systems  of  ingenious 
gamblers.  But  whatever  these  details  may  be, 
whether  they  are  details  of  scheme  or  argument, 
the  essential  element  of  each  is  the  omission  of  some 
fundamental  fact — or,  rather,  of  one  protean  fact — 
by  which  socialistic  thinkers  are  often  honestly 
confused,  because  it  assumes,  as  they  shift  their 
positions,  any  number  of  different  aspects.  This  is 
the  fact  that  out  of  unequal  men  it  is  absolutely 
impossible  to  construct  a  society  of  equals. 

Two  illustrations,  taken  from  the  history  of 
socialistic  thought,  will  show  how  socialists  hide 
this  fact  from  themselves,  first  by  a  fallacy  of  one 
kind,  then  in  a  fallacy  of  another  kind;  and  how, 
wherever  it  is  located,  it  is  the  essential  factor  in 
their  argument.  In  their  endeavor  to  prove  the 
possibility  of  an  equalization,  absolute  or  approxi- 
mate, of  economic  conditions,  Karl  Marx  and  the 
earlier  socialists  started  with  two  main  doctrines. 
The  one  was  a  moral  doctrine;  the  other  was  an 
economic.  The  moral  doctrine  was  that,  as  a 
matter  of  eternal  justice,  every  man  has  a  right 
to  the  whole  of  what  is  produced  by  him.  The 
economic  doctrine  was  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  only  producers  of  wealth  are  the  mass  of  manual 
laborers,  and  that,  with  certain  unimportant  excep- 
tions, the  economic  values  produced  by  all  laborers 
are  equal.     Hence  he  argued  that  all  wealth  ought 

173 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

to  go  to  the  laborers,  and  that  all  laborers  were 
entitled  to  approximately  equal  shares  of  it.  The 
later  socialists  aim  at  reaching  the  same  conclusion, 
and  they  start  with  two  doctrines,  a  moral  and  an 
economic,  likewise.  Having  arrived,  however,  at 
a  truer  theory  of  production — having  recognized 
that  labor  is  not  the  sole  producer,  and  that  some 
men  produce  incalculably  more  than  others,  they 
have,  in  order  to  support  their  demand  for  an 
equality  of  possession,  been  obliged  to  supplement 
their  repudiation  of  the  economic  theory  of  their 
predecessors,  by  repudiating  their  theory  of  eternal 
justice  also,  and  introducing  another  of  a  wholly 
opposite  character.  While  Karl  Marx  contended 
that,  in  justice,  production  and  possession  were 
inseparable,  the  later  socialists  contend  that  there 
is  no  connection  between  them,  and  that  it  is  per- 
fectly easy  to  convert  to  this  moral  view  every 
human  being  who  is  likely  to  suffer  by  its  adoption. 
Thus  the  difference  between  the  earlier  and  the 
later  socialists  is  as  follows:  The  earlier  socialists 
started  with  a  theory  of  justice  which  is  in  harmony 
with  common -sense  and  the  general  instincts  of 
mankind;  and  this  theory  was  pressed  into  the 
service  of  socialism  only  by  being  associated  mth. 
a  false  theory  of  production.  The  later  socialists 
start  with  a  truer  theory  of  production;  and  they 
reconcile  this  wdth  their  own  practical  programme, 
only  by  associating  it  with  a  false  moral  psychology. 
In  each  case  a  fallacy  is  the  basis  of  the  socialistic 
conclusion;    and  without  a  fallacy  somewhere — -a 

174 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

fallacy  which  is  pushed  about,  like  a  mouse  under 
a  table-cloth — so  socialistic  conclusion  even  tends  to 
develop  itself  from  the  premises. 

And  what  is  true  of  the  main  arguments  of  the 
later,  as  of  the  earlier  socialists,  is  equally  true  of 
their  subsidiary  arguments  also,  from  those  which 
refer  to  the  generalizations  of  the  sociologists  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  and  base  themselves  on  the 
confusion  between  speculative  truth  and  practical, 
down  to  those  which  are  drawn  from  the  absurd 
psychological  supposition  that  all  motives  are  inter- 
changeable, and  that  those  which  actuate  the  artist, 
the  anchorite,  and  the  soldier  can  be  made  to  replace 
by  means  of  a  vote  or  a  sermon  those  which  at  pres- 
ent actuate  the  masters  of  industrial  enterprise. 
On  whatever  argumentative  point  the  socialists,  as 
socialists,  lay  stress,  there,  under  one  form  or  an- 
other, their  root  fallacy  reappears.  In  short,  their 
arguments  are  illusionary  in  proportion  as  they 
themselves  value  them.  And  in  this  there  is  noth- 
ing wonderful.  The  more  logically  and  ingeniously 
men  reason  from  premises,  of  which  the  one  most 
essential  to  their  conclusions  is  radically  false  to 
fact,  the  more  punctually  on  every  critical  occasion 
is  this  fallacy  bound  to  reassert  itself  as  the  logical 
basis  of  that  which  they  desire  to  prove. 

The  question,  however,  still  remains  to  be  an- 
swered of  why  a  large  body  of  men,  like  the  educated 
apostles  of  socialism,  who  exhibit  as  a  class  no  typi- 
cal inferiority  of  intellect,  unite  in  accepting,  as 
though  drawn  to  it  by  some  chemical  affinity,  one 

^75 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

particular  error  which  dispassionate  common-sense 
disdains,  and  which  the  actual  history  of  the  whole 
human  race  refutes  ?  In  the  case  of  some  preachers 
of  socialism  the  answer  lies  on  the  surface.  Social- 
ism is  of  all  creeds  that  which  it  is  easiest  to  present 
to  the  ignorant;  and  in  these  days,  like  "patriot- 
ism" in  the  days  of  Dr.  Johnson,  it  is  often  "the 
last  refuge  of  a  scoundrel,"  or  of  a  desperate  and 
ambitious  fool.  But  I  here  put  such  cases  alto- 
gether aside.  What  I  here  have  in  view  are  men 
who  are  morally  and  intellectually  honest,  and 
many  of  whom,  indeed,  are  intellectually  above  the 
average.  How  is  the  affinity  for  one  common  error, 
and  the  passionate  promulgation  of  it  in  forms, 
many  of  which  are  conflicting,  to  be  accounted  for 
in  the  case  of  men  like  these  ? 

The  answer  to  this  is  to  be  found  not  in  their 
intellect,  but  in  their  temperament.  It  is  a  well- 
known  fact  that  men,  otherwise  of  high  capacity, 
are  incapable  of  mastering  any  but  the  humblest 
branches  of  mathematics.  With  the  men  who  be- 
come socialists  the  case  is  closely  similar.  Just  as 
certain  men  are  incapable  of  dealing  with  the  ab- 
stractions of  mathematics,  so  are  the  socialists  men 
who  in  virtue  of  their  constitutions  or  tempera- 
ments, are  incapable  of  comprehending  accurately 
the  concrete  facts  of  life,  and  are  consequently  as 
unable  with  any  practical  accuracy  to  reason  about 
them  as  a  professor  of  mathematics  would  be  to 
reason  about  the  value  of  strawberries,  if  he  knew 
only  their  weights  or  numbers,  but  had  no  expert 

176 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

judgment  with  regard  to  their  condition  or  qual- 
ity. 

To   ascertain   how  the   socialistic  temperament 
thus  debiHtates  the  faculties,  it  will  be  enough  to 
note    certain    characteristics    distinctive    of    those 
possessing  it.     Such  persons  are  all  distingushed, 
though  naturally  in  various  degrees,  by  an  undue 
preponderance  of  the  emotional  over  the  critical 
faculties,    whence  there   arises  in  them   what,   to 
borrow  a  phrase  of  President  Roosevelt's,  we  may 
aptly  call  an  inflammation  of  the  social  sympathies. 
This  makes  such  persons  magnify  into  intolerable 
wrongs  all  sorts  of  pains  and  inconveniences  which 
most  men  accept  as  part  of  "the  rough  and  tumble  " 
of  life ;  and  it  thus  renders  them  abnormally  impa- 
tient of  the  actual,   and  abnormally  preoccupied 
with  the  ideal.     The  ideal  vision  which  they  see 
arising  out  of  the  actual  is  for  them  so  illuminated, 
as  though  by  a  kind  of  lime-light,  that  the  details 
of  the  actual,  thrown  into  comparative  obscurity, 
either  cannot  be  minutely  distinguished  by  them, 
or,  like  the  words  of  an  unwelcome  talker,  cannot 
fix  their  attention.  Without  habitual  concentration 
of  the  attention  on  the  subject  matter  with  which 
reason  deals,  no  reasoning  can  deal  with  it  to  any 
practical   purpose;    and  men   of  that  class  from 
which  socialists  of  the  higher  kind  are  recruited, 
are  men  who  fail  to  understand  the  modern  indus- 
trial process,  because  they  are  hindered  by  their 
temperament  from  giving  a  sufficient  attention  to 
its  details.     They  derive  from  them  vivid  impres- 

177 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATIOxN   OF   SOCIALISM 

sions,  but  no  practical  knowledge,  like  Turner  when 
he  painted  a  train  swathed  in  its  own  vapor,  and 
flushing  the  wet  air  with  the  fires  of  its  lamps 
and  furnace.  From  a  study  of  Turner's  picture  of 
"Rain,  Steam,  and  Speed,"  it  would  be  impossible 
for  any  human  being  to  conjecture  how  a  locomotive 
was  constructed.  It  would  be  still  more  impossible 
to  form  any  judgment  as  to  how  its  slide-valves,  or 
its  blast,  or  the  tubes  of  its  boiler  might  be  im- 
proved. It  is  similarly  impossible  for  men  of  the 
socialistic  temperament  to  understand  the  general 
process  of  industry,  or  to  judge  how  it  can  and  how 
it  can  not  be  altered,  from  the  purely  spectacu- 
lar impressions  which  its  intricate  parts  produce  on 
them. 

But  the  ingrained  inability  of  such  men  to  under- 
stand that  which  they  would  revolutionize  does 
not  reveal  itself  in  their  errors  of  theory  only.  It 
reveals  itself  still  more  strikingly  in  their  own  rela- 
tions to  life.  If  we  allow  for  exceptional  cases, 
such  as  that  of  Robert  Owen,  who  was  in  his  earlier 
days  a  competent  man  of  business,  we  shall  find 
that  the  theorists  who  desire  to  socialize  wealth  are 
generically  deficient  in  the  higher  energies  that 
produce  it.  Though  they  doubtless  could,  like 
most  men  who  are  not  cripples  or  idiots,  make  a 
living  by  some  form  of  manual  labor,  they  have 
none  of  them  done  anything  to  enlarge  the  powers 
of  industry,  or  even  to  sustain  them  at  their  present 
pitch  of  efficiency.  They  have  never  made  two 
blades  of  grass  grow  where  one  blade  grew  before. 

178 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

They  have  never  applied  chemistry  to  the  com- 
mercial manufacture  of  chemicals.  They  have 
never  organized  the  systems  or  improved  the  ships 
and  engines  by  which  food  finds  its  way  from  the 
prairies  to  the  cities  which  would  else  be  starving. 
If  in  some  city  or  district  an  old  industry  declines, 
they  demand  with  tears  that  the  thousands  thus 
thrown  out  of  employment  shall  be  set  by  the  state 
to  do  or  produce  something,  even  though  this  be  a 
something  which  is  not  wanted  by  anybody.  They 
never  set  themselves  to  devise,  as  was  done  in  the 
English  midlands,  some  new  commodity,  such  as 
the  modern  bicycle,  which  was  not  only  a  means 
of  providing  the  laborers  with  a  maintenance,  but 
was  also  a  notable  addition  to  the  wealth  of  the 
world  at  large.  They  fail  to  do  these  things  for  the 
simple  reason  that  they  cannot  do  them ;  and  they 
cannot  do  them  because  they  are  deficient  alike  in 
the  interest  requisite  for  understanding  how  they 
are  done,  and  in  the  concentrated  practical  energy 
which  is  no  less  requisite  for  the  doing  of  them. 

At  the  end  of  an  address  in  which  I  had  been 
dealing  with  this  subject  at  New  York,  a  young 
man,  one  of  my  hearers,  told  me  that  I  had  been 
putting  into  words  what  had  long  been  borne  in 
on  himself  by  his  own  studies  and  observations — 
the  fact — namely,  that  the  social  leaders  of  men  are 
divided  into  two  classes,  those  who  dream  about  re- 
forming the  industrial  business  of  the  world,  and 
those — an  opposite  type — who  alone  advance  and  ac- 
complish it.     Here  we  have  the  conclusion  of  the 

179 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

whole  matter.  These  two  classes  are  contrasted, 
not  because  in  mere  intellect  one  is  inferior  to  the 
other,  but  because  when  they  are  dealing  with  the 
industrial  affairs  of  life  these  affairs  appeal  to  them 
in  two  contrasted  ways.  One  of  these  classes  takes 
men  and  nature  as  they  are.  With  the  utmost 
minuteness  it  masters  the  secrets  of  the  first;  with 
the  utmost  minuteness  it  directs  the  actions  of  the 
second;  and  in  seeking  wealth  for  itself  it  brings 
about  those  conditions  which  alone  can  make  added 
wealth  a  practical  possibility  for  all.  The  other 
class,  occupied  not  with  what  is  but  what  ought  to 
be,  fails  to  understand  what  can  be,  because  it  does 
not  understand  what  is.  The  men  of  whom  this 
class  is  composed — the  men  whose  temperamental 
deficiency  now  finds  its  fullest  expression  in  social- 
ism, as  it  did  formerly  in  theories  of  ultra-demo- 
cratic individualism,  are  like  amateur  architects, 
and  amateur  sanitary  engineers,  who,  thinking  in 
pictures,  and  having  no  knowledge  of  structure, 
condemn  existing  houses  and  existing  systems  of 
drainage,  and  would  replace  them  with  palaces 
which  no  builder  could  build,  with  arches  which 
would  collapse  from  the  weight  of  their  own  mate- 
rials, and  magnificent  cloacas  the  waters  in  which 
would  have  to  run  uphill.  The  theory,  then,  of 
socialism,  let  it  take  what  form  it  will — the  theory 
which  represents  as  practicable  by  one  device  or 
another  the  social  equalization  of  economically 
unequal  men — is  a  theory  which,  in  minds  which 
are  intellectually  honest,  can  develop  itself  only  in 

i8o 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

proportion  as  these  minds  are  incapable  of  grasping 
in  their  connected  completeness  the  actual  facts  of 
life;  and  that  such  is  the  case  has  been  illustrated 
in  the  preceding  chapters  by  a  systematic  analysis 
of  all  the  crucial  arguments  on  which  socialists  have 
rested  their  case  from  the  earliest  day  of  socialistic 
thought  to  the  latest. 

The  reader,  however,  must  observe  the  manner 
in  which  this  statement  is  qualified.  In  speaking 
of  the  arguments  of  the  socialists,  I  speak  of  those 
that  are  crucial  only — that  is  to  say,  of  those  argu- 
ments used  by  socialistic  thinkers  in  support  of 
their  programme  in  so  far  as  that  programme  is 
peculiar.  It  is  necessary  to  note  this  because,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  with  such  of  their  arguments  as 
are  proper  to  socialism  only,  the  philosophers  of 
socialism  and  their  disciples  frequently  associate 
others  which  are  not  peculiar  to  the  socialistic 
scheme  at  all,  but  which  nevertheless  multitudes  of 
men  who  call  themselves  socialists  regard  as  being 
at  once  the  most  important  and  practicable  parts 
of  it ;  and  these  I  have  in  consequence  reserved  for 
separate  treatment.  They  are  three  in  number, 
and  are  as  follows : 

The  first  relates  to  the  remuneration  of  the 
ordinary  manual  laborer,  and  deals  with  the  ques- 
tion of  what  his  just  remuneration  is.  According 
to  Marx  this  question  is  easily  settled.  Of  every 
thousand  laborers  associated  in  any  given  industry, 
each  produces,  with  few  and  unimportant  excep- 
tions, a  thousandth  part  of  the  whole  exchangeable 

13  i8i 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

product;  and  his  just  remuneration  is  a  thousandth 
part  of  the  value  of  it.  The  intellectual  socialists  of 
to-day,  while  repudiating  as  we  have  seen  the  doc- 
trine that  the  laborer's  claim  to  remuneration  is 
limited  to  the  values  produced  by  him,  and  con- 
tending that  he  has  a  further  right  to  the  product 
of  the  ability  of  others,  constantly  declare  that, 
even  according  to  the  moral  standard  of  Marx,  he 
is  usually  defrauded  at  present  of  a  large  part  of  his 
due ;  or,  that  in  most  if  not  all  industries,  his  wages 
represent  but  a  part  of  the  full  value  produced  by 
him.  Whether  this  is  so  or  not  is  a  question  not 
of  theory  but  of  fact,  and  one  which  can  only  be 
answered  by  discovering  some  intelligible  basis  on 
which  the  values  produced  by  labor  in  a  general 
way  may  be  estimated,  as  distinct  from  those  pro- 
duced by  effort  of  other  kinds.  With  this  question 
I  shall  deal  in  the  following  chapter. 

The  second  relates  to  those  forms  of  individual 
income  which  are  covered  by  the  word  interest, 
when  used  in  a  comprehensive  sense.  It  being 
admitted  by  the  later  socialists,  in  opposition  to 
the  earlier,  that  the  directive  ability  of  the  few  is, 
in  the  modern  world,  a  productive  agency  no  less 
truly  than  labor  is,  many  of  these  socialists  are  now 
anxious  to  concede  that  the  man  of  ability  is 
entitled  to  such  values,  no  matter  how  large,  as 
are  due  to  the  active  exercise  of  his  own  exceptional 
powers;  but  they  contend  that,  as  soon  as  his  per- 
sonal activity  ceases,  his  claim  to  any  influx  of 
further  wealth  should  therewith  cease  also.     Let 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

him  spend  his  accumulations,  they  say,  on  his  own 
gratifications  as  he  will;  but  neither  he  nor  his 
descendants  can  be  suffered  in  moral  justice  to 
hold  or  apply  them  in  such  a  manner  that  they  will 
renew  themselves,  and  yield  an  income  to  recipients 
who  do  nothing  to  make  them  fructify.  To  num- 
bers of  people  who  repudiate  most  of  the  socialistic 
programme,  this  doctrine  as  to  interest  appeals  as 
at  once  just  and  practicable.  If  the  state  could 
appropriate  all  incomes  due  to  interest,  as  distinct 
from  those  which  represent  the  products  of  active 
ability,  an  enormous  fund  would,  they  think,  be 
available  for  general  distribution,  and  the  ideals  of 
socialism,  in  so  far  as  they  are  practicable  or 
desirable,  might  thus  be  realized  by  other  than 
socialistic  means.  This  argument,  likewise,  will 
have  its  own  chapter  allotted  to  it. 

The  third  of  these  arguments  or  proposals  which, 
though  not  in  themselves  socialistic,  are  popularly 
associated  with  socialism,  relates  to  equality  of 
opportunity.  To  this  also  I  will  devote  a  separate 
chapter. 


CHAPTER   XII 

THE    JUST     REWARD    OF     LABOR    AS     ESTIMATED     BY 
ITS    ACIUAL    PRODUCTS 

Modem  socialists  admit  that  of  the  wealth  produced  to- 
day labor  does  not  produce  the  whole,  but  that  some  part  is 
produced  by  directive  ability.  But  they  contend  that  labor 
produces  more  than  it  gets.  We  can  only  ascertain  if  such  an 
assertion  is  correct  by  discovering  how  to  estimate  with  some 
precision  the  amount  produced  by  labor  and  ability  respec- 
tively 

But  since  for  the  production  of  the  total  product  labor  and 
ability  are  both  alike  necessary,  how  can  we  say  that  any 
special  proportion  of  it  is  produced  by  one  or  the  other  ? 

J.  S.  Mill's  answer  to  this  question. 

The  profound  error  of  Mill's  argument. 

Practically  so  much  of  any  effect  is  due  to  any  one  of  its 
causes  as  would  be  absent  from  this  effect  were  the  cause  in 
question  taken  away.     Illustrations. 

Labor  itself  produces  as  much  as  it  would  produce  were  there 
no  ability  to  direct  it. 

The  argument  which  might  be  drawn  from  the  case  of  a 
community  in  which  there  was  no  labor. 

Such  an  argument  illusory ;  for  a  community  in  which  there 
was  no  labor  would  be  impossible ;  but  the  paralysis  of  ability, 
or  its  practical  non-existence,  possible. 

Practical  reasoning  of  all  kinds  always  confines  itself  to  the 
contemplation  of  possibilities.      Illustrations. 

Restatement  of  proposition  as  to  the  amount  of  the  product 
of  labor. 

The  product  of  ability  only  partially  described  by  assimilat- 
ing it  to  rent. 

184 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

Ability  produces  everything  which  would  not  be  produced  if 
its  operation  were  hampered  or  suspended. 

Increased  reward  of  labor  in  Great  Britain  since  the  year 
1800.  The  reward  now  received  by  labor  far  in  excess  of  what 
labor  itself  produces. 

In  capitalistic  countries  generally  labor  gets,  not  less,  but 
far  more  than  its  due,  if  its  due  is  to  be  measured  by  its  own 
products. 

It  is  necessary  to  remember  this;  but  its  due  is  not  to  be 
measured  exclusively  by  its  own  products. 

As  will  be  seen  in  the  concluding  chapter. 

Since  the  educated  socialists  of  to-day  admit 
that  in  the  modern  world  wealth  is  produced  by 
two  functionally  different  classes — a  majority  who 
labor  and  a  minority  by  whom  this  labor  is  directed ; 
or  by  two  different  faculties — namely,  labor  and 
directive  ability — the  question  of  how  much  of  the 
total  product  or  its  value  is  produced  by  one  class 
or  agency,  and  how  much  by  the  other,  is,  for  all 
social  reformers  and  not  for  socialists  only,  a  ques- 
tion of  the  first  importance;  for  in  the  minds  of 
numbers,  who  care  little  about  ideal  transfigurations 
of  society,  the  doctrines  of  socialism  leave  one  vivid 
conviction,  which  is  this — that,  though  the  laborers 
in  the  modern  world  do  not  produce  anything, 
though  the  ability  of  those  directing  them  is  a  pro- 
ductive agent  also,  and  though  part  of  the  wealth 
of  modern  nations  is  undoubtedly  produced  by  this, 
yet  the  men  of  ability  produce  much  less  than  they 
manage  to  keep,  while  the  laborers  produce  much 
more  than  is  represented  by  the  wages  which  they 
get;  that  labor  in  this  way,  even  if  in  no  other,  is 
suffering  at  present  a  general  and  intolerable  wrong ; 

185 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

and  that  socialism  is  simply  a  system  by  which  this 
wrong  will  be  righted.* 

Now  this  alleged  wrong  is  essentially  an  affair  of 
quantity.  If  the  products  of  any  typical  firm — 
one,  let  us  say,  which  produces  chemicals — are 
represented  by  the  number  a  hundred,  and  if  fifty 
represents  the  amount  which  at  present  is  the  share 
of  labor,  the  rest  being  taken  by  men  of  directive 
ability — a  picked  body  of  organizers,  chemists,  and 
inventors — labor,  it  is  contended,  produces  more 
than  the  fifty,  which  is  all  that  it  at  present  gets. 
Yes;  but  how  much  more?  It  is  not  contended 
that  it  produces  the  entire  hundred.  Does  it  pro- 
duce, then,  sixty,  or  sixty-five,  or  seventy,  or 
eighty-three,  or  what?  Unless  such  a  wrong  as 
this  can  have  some  extent  assigned  to  it — unless  it 
can  be  measured  approximately  by  reference  to 

'  I  met  an  interesting  embodiment  of  this  mood  of  mind 
in  America,  in  the  person  of  a  slim  young  man,  well-dressed, 
well-educated,  refined  in  his  speech  and  manners,  who  worked 
as  a  clerk  or  accountant  in  some  large  financial  house.  To 
my  great  astonishment  he  introduced  himself  to  me  as  a 
socialist.  "I  don't  believe  like  Marx,"  he  said,  "that  labor 
produces  everything,  but  I  maintain  that  the  task-work  of 
the  employed  and  directed  laborer,  of  whatever  grade — - 
whether  he  uses  a  pen  or  a  chisel — is  always  worth  more  than 
the  wages  which  the  employers  pay  him  for  performing  it.  I 
feel  this  myself  with  regard  to  my  own  firm.  Month  by  month 
I  am  worth  to  it  more  than  the  sums  it  gives  me.  This,"  he 
went  on,  with  an  odd  gleam  in  his  eyes,  "is  what  I  may  not 
endure  to  think  of — that  others  should  be  always  appropriat- 
ing values  which  I  have  produced  myself;  and  nine  out  of  ten 
of  the  men  who  become  socialists,  do  so  because  they  feel  as  I 
do  about  this  particular  point." 

i86 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

some  intelligible  standard — it  is  not  only  difficult 
to  deal  with  it,  it  is  impossible  to  be  sure  that  it 
exists.  Of  course  we  are  here  not  contemplating 
individual  cases.  That  some  employes  may,  under 
existing  conditions,  get  less  than  their  work  is 
worth,  is  possible  and  likely  enough.  It  is  equally 
likely  and  possible  that  others  may  get  more.  We 
must  confine  ourselves  to  what  happens  generally. 
We  must  take  labor  as  a  whole,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  directive  ability  on  the  other,  and  ask  how  we 
may  estimate,  with  rough  but  substantial  accuracy, 
the  proportion  of  the  joint  product  respectively 
produced  by  each. 

At  first  sight  it  may  seem  that  this  problem  is 
incapable  of  any  definite  solution;  and  some  so- 
cialistic writers  have  done  their  best  to  obscure  it. 
The  efficiency  of  labor,  they  say,  is  in  the  modern 
world  largely  due  no  doubt  to  the  action  of  directive 
ability;  but  ability  could  produce  nothing  unless  it 
had  labor  to  direct;  whence  it  is  inferred  that  the 
claim  of  labor  on  the  product  may  in  justice  be 
almost  anything  short  of  the  absolute  total.  To 
this  abstract  argument  we  will  presently  come  back ; 
but  we  will  first  examine  another  urged  by  a  cele- 
brated thinker,  which,  though  less  extreme  in  its 
implications,  would,  were  it  only  sound,  be  even 
more  fatal  to  our  chances  of  arriving  at  the  con- 
clusion sought  for.  The  thinker  to  whom  I  refer 
is  Mill,  who  assigns  to  this  argument  a  very  promi- 
nent place  in  the  opening  chapter  of  his  Principles 
of  Political  Economy. 

187 


A    CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

Certain  economists  have,  so  he  says,  debated 
"  whether  nature  gives  more  assistance  to  labor  in 
one  kind  of  industry  than  in  another";  and  he 
endeavors  to  show  that  the  question  is  in  its  very 
essence  unanswerable.  "  When  two  conditions,"  he 
proceeds,  "are  equally  necessary  for  producing  the 
effect  at  all,  it  is  unmeaning  to  say  that  so  much 
is  produced  by  one,  and  so  much  by  the  other.  It 
is  like  attempting  to  decide  which  of  the  factors 
five  and  six  contributes  most  to  the  production  of 
thirty."  And  if  this  argument  is  true  of  nature 
and  labor,  it  is  equally  true  of  labor  and  the  ability 
by  which  labor  is  directed.  Thus  a  great  ocean 
liner  which,  in  Mill's  language,  would  be  "the 
effect,"  could  not  be  produced  at  all  without  the 
labor  of  several  thousand  laborers :  and  it  is  equally 
true  that  it  could  not  be  produced  at  all  unless  the 
masters  of  various  sciences,  designers,  inventors, 
and  organizers,  directed  the  labor  of  the  laborers 
in  certain  specific  ways.  Both  conditions,  then, 
being  "necessary  for  producing  the  effect  at  all," 
the  portions  of  it  due  to  each  would,  according  to 
Mill's  argument,  be  indeterminable.  Let  us  con- 
sider, therefore,  if  Mill's  argument  is  sound.  We 
shall  find  that  it  is  vitiated  by  a  fallacy  which  will, 
as  soon  as  we  have  perceived  it,  show  us  the  way 
to  the  truth  of  which  we  are  now  in  search.  Let 
us  begin  with  taking  the  argument  as  he  himself 
applies  it. 

He  brings  it  forward  with  special  reference  to 
agriculture,  and  aims  it  at  the  contention  of  a  cer- 

i88 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

tain  school  of  economists  that  nature  in  agriculture 
did  more  than  in  other  industries.  To  urge  this, 
says  Mill,  is  nonsense,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
though  nature  in  agriculture  does  something,  it  is 
impossible  to  determine  whether  the  something  is 
relatively  much  or  little.  Let  us,  he  says  in  effect, 
take  the  products  of  any  farm,  which  we  may  for 
convenience'  sake  symbolize  as  so  many  loaves ;  and 
it  is  obviously  absurd  to  inquire  which  produces 
most  of  them — the  soil  or  the  farm  laborers.  The 
soil  without  the  laborers  would  produce  no  loaves 
at  all.  The  laborers  would  produce  no  loaves  if 
they  had  not  the  soil  to  work  upon. 

Now  if  there  were  only  one  farm  in  the  world, 
and  one  grade  of  labor,  and  if  every  acre  of  this, 
when  the  same  labor  was  applied  to  it,  would 
always  yield  the  same  amount  of  produce — let  us 
say  one  loaf — Mill's  argument  would  be  true.  The 
actual  state  of  the  case  is,  however,  very  different. 
Acres  vary  very  greatly  in  quality;  and  if  we  take 
four  acres  of  varying  degrees  of  fertility,  to  all  of 
which  is  applied  the  same  amount  of  labor,  then, 
while  from  the  worst  of  the  acres  this  labor  will 
eHcit  one  loaf,  it  will  elicit  from  the  others,  let  us 
say,  according  to  their  degrees  of  fertility,  two 
loaves,  three  loaves,  and  four  loaves,  respectively. 
Here  the  labor  being  in  each  of  the  four  cases  the 
same,  and  the  additional  loaves  resulting  in  three 
cases  only,  it  is  obvious  that  the  difference  between 
the  larger  products  and  the  least  are  not  due  to  the 
labor,   but  to  certain  additional  qualities  present 

189 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

in  the  three  superior  acres  and  not  present  in  the 
worst  one.  In  other  words,  although  in  producing 
loaves — or,  as  Mill  describes  it,  "the  effect" — the 
parts  played  by  labor  and  nature  are  indefinite  and 
incommensurable  so  long  as  the  land,  the  labor, 
and  the  effect  remain  all  three  the  same,  the  parts 
become  immediately  measurable  when  the  effect 
begins  to  vary,  and  one  of  the  causes,  and  only  one 
of  them,  at  the  same  time  varies  also. 

This  truth  can  be  yet  further  elucidated  by  the 
very  illustration  which  Mill  cites  in  disproof  of  it. 
It  is  absurd  to  ask,  he  says,  whether  the  number 
five  or  six  does  most,  when  they  are  multiplied  to- 
gether, to  produce  "the  effect"  thirty.  This  is 
true  so  long  as  "the  effect"  thirty  is  constant;  but 
if  on  occasions  the  thirty  is  increased  to  forty, 
and  if  whenever  this  happens  the  six  has  in- 
creased to  eight,  we  know  that  the  extra  ten  which 
our  multiplication  yields  us  is  not  due  to  the 
five,  the  number  which  remains  unchanged,  but 
to  the  extra  two  now  present  in  the  niunber  that 
once  was  six.  Or  again  let  us  take  as  "the  ef- 
fect" the  speed  of  a  motor-car  which  is  raced  over 
a  mile  of  road.  Unless  two  conditions  were  pres- 
ent —  the  engine  and  some  ground  to  run  upon 
— ^the  car  could  not  run  at  all;  and  if  there  were 
only  one  road  and  one  car  in  the  world,  it  would 
be  absurd  to  inquire  how  much  of  the  speed  was 
due  to  the  merits  of  the  engine,  and  how  much  to 
the  character  of  the  road's  surface.  But  if,  the  car 
remaining  unchanged,  the  surface  of  the  road  was 

190 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

improved,  and  a  speed  was  therewith  developed  of 
thirty  miles  an  hour  instead  of  twenty,  we  should, 
with  regard  to  the  increment,  at  once  be  able  to 
say  that  it  was  due  to  the  surface  of  the  road,  and 
was  not  due  to  the  engine.  Conversely,  if  the  road 
were  unchanged,  but  the  car  had  a  new  engine,  and 
the  speed  under  these  conditions  increased  in  the 
same  way,  the  increment  would  be  evidently  attrib- 
utable to  the  engine  and  not  the  road. 

And  the  same  observations  apply  to  labor  and 
directive  ability,  whenever  the  operations  of  both 
are  essential  to  a  given  product.  If  the  ability  and 
the  labor  were  always  inevitably  constant,  and 
the  product  as  to  quality  and  amount  were  simi- 
larly constant  also,  we  could  not  say  that  so  much 
or  so  little  of  the  effect  was  due  to  one  cause,  and  so 
much  or  so  little  to  the  other.  If  there  were  in  the 
world  only  a  thousand  shipwrights,  and  these  men, 
working  always  under  the  same  director,  always 
produced  in  a  year  one  ship  of  an  unchanging  kind, 
we  could  not  say  which  of  its  parts  or  how  much  of 
its  value  were  due  to  the  man  directing,  and  which 
or  how  much  were  due  to  the  men  directed.  But 
if  for  one  year  this  director  were  to  retire  and 
another  was  to  take  his  place,  and,  the  same 
laborers  being  directed  by  this  new  master,  the 
result  was  the  production  not  of  one  ship  but  of 
two;  and  if,  when  the  year  was  ended,  and  the  old 
master  came  back  again,  the  annual  product  once 
more  was  not  two  ships  but  one,  we  could  then 
say,  as  a  matter  of  common-sense  with  regard  to 

191 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

the  year  during  which  the  two  vessels  were  built, 
that  the  second  vessel,  whatever  might  be  the  case 
with  the  first,  was  due  wholly  to  the  ability  of  the 
master,  and  not  to  the  labor  of  the  men.  In  other 
words,  the  ability  of  the  director  of  labor  produces 
so  much  of  the  product,  or  of  that  product's  value 
as  exceeds  what  was  produced  by  the  laborers  be- 
fore their  labor  was  directed  by  him,  and  would 
cease  to  be  produced  any  longer  as  soon  as  his 
direction  was  withdrawn. 

That  in  the  case  of  any  result  which  requires 
separable  causes  for  its  production,  this  method  of 
allocating  to  these  causes  respectively  so  much  of 
the  result  and  so  much  of  it  only,  is  a  method 
always  adopted  in  all  practical  reasoning,  may  be 
seen  by  taking  a  result  which  is  not  beneficial  but 
criminal.  Twenty  Russian  laborers,  all  loyal  to 
the  Czar,  are,  let  us  say,  employed  to  dig  out  a 
cellar  under  a  certain  street,  and  to  fill  it  with  cases 
which  ostensibly  contain  wine.  Subsequently,  as 
the  Czar  is  passing,  he  is  killed  by  a  huge  explosion. 
It  then  becomes  apparent  that  the  so-called  cellar 
was  a  mine,  and  the  harmless-looking  cases  had 
really  been  filled  with  dynamite.  Now  if  all  those 
concerned  in  the  consummation  of  this  catastrophe 
were  tried,  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  part 
played  by  the  laborers  would  be  sharply  discrimi- 
nated from  that  played  by  the  man  employing 
them;  and,  although  they  contributed  something 
which  was  necessary  to  the  production  of  the  result, 
it  would  certainly  have  been  admitted  by  General 

192 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

Trepoff  himself  that  they  had  contributed  nothing 
to  its  essential  and  criminal  elements.  It  is  equally 
evident  that  the  increment  of  wealth  which  results 
from  the  obedience  of  laborers  to  injunctions  which 
do  not  emanate  from  themselves,  is  produced  by 
the  man  who  gives  the  injunctions,  and  not  by  the 
men  who  obey  them. 

But  here  we  must  return  to  the  argument, 
already  mentioned  in  passing,  which  may  be  re- 
stated thus :  A  thousand  laborers,  directed  by 
their  own  intelligence  only,  produce  a  product 
whose  amount  we  will  call  a  thousand.  The  same 
laborers  are  directed  by  a  man  of  ability,  and  the 
product  rises  from  one  thousand  to  two.  But  if 
the  production  of  this  second  thousand  is  to  be 
credited  to  the  man  of  ability  on  the  ground  that, 
were  the  ability  absent,  no  second  thousand  would 
be  produced,  we  may  reach  by  the  same  reasoning 
a  conclusion  precisely  opposite,  and  credit  not  only 
the  first,  but  both  the  thousands  to  labor,  on  the 
ground  that,  if  the  labor  were  absent,  nothing 
would  be  produced  at  all.  The  argument  is  plausi- 
ble ;  and  in  order  to  understand  its  fallacy  we  must 
give  our  attention  to  a  fact,  not  generally  realized, 
which  is  involved  in  all  practical  reasoning  about 
all  causes  whatsoever. 

If  we  use  the  wo^d  "cause"  in  its  strict  specu- 
lative sense,  the  number  of  causes  involved  in  the 
simplest  effect  is  infinite.  Let  us  take,  for  example, 
the  speed  of  a  horse  which  wins  a  race.  Why  does 
the  speed  of  this  horse  exceed  that  of  the  others? 

193 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

We  may  in  answer  point  to  qualities  of  its  individual 
organism.  But  these  will  carry  us  back  to  all  its 
recorded  ancestors — sires  and  dams  for  a  large  num- 
ber of  generations :  and  even  so  we  shall  have  been 
taken  but  a  small  part  of  our  way.  The  remotest 
of  these  ancestors — why  were  they  horses  at  all? 
For  our  answer  we  must  travel  through  the  stages 
of  organic  evolution,  till  we  reach  the  point  at  which 
animal  and  vegetable  life  were  one.  Had  any  of 
these  antecedents  been  missing,  the  winning  race- 
horse would  not  have  won  the  race.  Nor  is  this 
all.  We  have  to  include  in  our  causes  air,  gravita- 
tion, and  the  fact  that  the  earth  is  solid.  No  horse 
could  win  on  turf  which  was  based  on  vapor.  But 
by  all  the  thousands  who  witness  a  great  race  this 
whole  mass  of  ulterior,  though  necessary,  causes  is 
ignored.  The  only  causes  which  for  them  have  any 
practical  interest  are  those  comprised  in  the  organ- 
ism of  the  winning  horse  itself.  Who  would  con- 
tend that  this  horse  had  not  won  its  own  victory, 
on  the  ground  that  part  of  its  own  speed — a  part 
which  could  not  be  calculated — was  contributed  by 
the  crust  of  the  earth,  or  the  general  constitution  of 
the  universe?  Any  one  arguing  thus  would  be 
howled  down  as  a  madman.  Now  why  is  this? 
Why  would  the  common-sense  of  mankind,  in  a 
practical  matter  like  a  race,*  instinctively  exer- 
cise this  kind  of  eclecticism,  concentrating  itself 
on  certain  causes,  and  absolutely  ignoring  oth- 
ers? Such  behavior  is  not  arbitrary.  It  depends 
on   a  principle   inherent   in   all   practical   reason- 

194 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

ing    whatsoever.      Let    us    see    what    this   princi- 
ple is. 

When,  with  any  practical  purpose  in  view,  we 
insist  that  anything  is  the  cause  of  anything  else, 
or  produces  anything  else,  we  are  always  selecting, 
out  of  an  incalculable  number  of  causes,  one  cause 
or  agency  which,  under  the  circumstances  in  view, 
may  or  may  not  be  present ;  which  a  careless  person 
may  neglect  to  introduce ;  which  an  ignorant  person 
may  be  persuaded  to  take  away ;  or  a  recognition 
of  which  will  influence  human  conduct  somehow; 
while  all  other  causes,  which  no  one  proposes  to 
take  away,  or  which  no  one  is  able  to  take  away, 
are  assumed  by  all  parties,  but  they  are  not  con- 
sidered by  anybody.  Why  should  they  be  consid- 
ered ?  Not  only  are  they  so  numerous  that  no  intel- 
lect could  deal  with  them,  but  they  have,  since  with 
regard  to  them  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion, 
no  place  in  any  practical  discussion  at  all.  If  a 
ton  of  stone  is  to  be  placed  on  a  piece  of  framework, 
men  may  reasonably  discuss  whether  the  frame- 
work is  strong  enough  to  bear  it,  or  whether  ma- 
terial is  not  being  wasted  in  making  it  stronger 
than  necessary.  What  will  happen  without  an 
additional  girder  ?  Or  what  will  happen  if  we  take 
two  girders  away?  Will  the  stone  fall  or  not? 
These  questions  belong  to  the  domain  of  practical 
reasoning  because  to  take  a  girder  away,  or  else 
introduce  fresh  ones,  lies  within  the  power  of  the 
disputants.  But  no  practical  men  would  think  of 
complicating  the  discussion  by  calculating   what 

195 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

would  happen  if  they  suspended  the  law  of  gravita- 
tion, in  which  case  the  stone  would  need  no  support 
whatever;  for  to  suspend  the  law  of  gravitation  is 
within  the  power  of  nobody.  If  two  men  are  de- 
bating in  the  middle  of  the  night  at  midsummer 
whether  there  is  enough  oil  in  the  lamp  to  keep  it 
alight  till  sunrise,  they  are  debating  a  question  of  a 
strictly  practical  kind:  for  it  rests  with  them  to 
put  in  more  oil  or  not.  What  will  happen  if  they 
do  not?  That  is  the  point  at  issue.  But  they 
neither  of  them  would  debate  what  would  happen 
if  the  movement  of  the  earth  were  retarded,  and 
the  midsummer  morning  were  delayed  till  the  hour 
at  which  it  dawns  in  winter.  They  do  not  discuss 
this  contingency,  for  they  rightly  assume  it  to  be 
impossible,  and  consequently  the  discussion  of  it 
would  have  no  practical  meaning. 

And  now  let  us  go  back  to  the  question  of  labor 
and  ability;  and  we  shall  see,  in  the  case  of  prod- 
ucts to  the  production  of  which  both  are  essential, 
that,  while  ability  is  the  practical  cause  of  all  such 
amounts  or  values  as  exceed  what  would  have  been 
produced  by  labor  if  there  were  no  ability  to  direct 
it,  it  cannot  be  claimed  in  any  similar  sense  that  all 
amounts  and  values  are  conversely  produced  by 
labor,  which  exceed  what  would  have  been  pro- 
duced by  the  action  of  directive  ability,  if  no  labor 
existed  for  such  ability  to  direct. 

The  reason  why  labor,  in  this  respect,  differs 
from  ability  is  as  follows:  Whether  directive  ability 
shall  or  shall  not  exert  itself  depends  upon  human 

196 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

volitions  which,  according  to  circumstances,  are 
alterable,  just  as  it  depends  upon  alterable  human 
volitions  whether  a  framework  of  steel  be  con- 
structed in  this  way  or  in  that ;  or  whether  a  lamp 
be  replenished  with  oil  or  no.  But  whether  or- 
dinary manual  labor  shall  or  shall  not  exert  itself, 
is  not  similarly  dependent  on  human  volition  at 
all.  Let  a  nation  be  organized,  no  matter  on  what 
principles,  the  majority  of  the  citizens  will  have  to 
labor  in  any  case.  The  supposition  of  their  labor- 
ing is  bound  up  with  the  supposition  of  their 
existence.  To  suppose  that  the  laborers  as  a  whole 
could  permanently  cease  to  labor,  is  like  supposing 
that  they  could  exist  and  yet  permanently  cease  to 
breathe.  They  can  cease  to  labor  for  moments, 
just  as  for  moments  a  man  can  hold  his  breath; 
but  they  can  do  so  for  moments  only.  Except  in  a 
region  where  climatic  conditions  are  exceptional, 
what  makes  men  labor  is  not  an  employing  class, 
but  nature.  Directive  ability  does  not  make  them 
labor;  it  finds  them  laboring.  It  finds  them  like 
wheels  which  are  driven  by  an  eternal  stream,  and 
which  must  turn  and  turn  forever,  until  they  fall 
to  pieces.  To  inquire,  then,  what  would  happen 
if  labor  ceased  to  exert  itself  is  like  inquiring  what 
would  happen  if  the  earth  were  to  retard  its  diurnal 
motion,  or  if  some  law  of  the  universe — for  example, 
the  law  of  gravitation — were  to  strike  work  for  the 
sake  of  intimidating  the  cause  of  all  things.  Such 
suppositions  are  for  practical  purposes  meaningless. 
But  with  the  directive  ability  of  the  few,  as  opposed 

14  197 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

to  the  directed  labor  of  the  many,  the  case  is 
dramatically  different.  For  while  there  never  can 
be  any  question  of  the  directive  faculties  of  the 
few  being  left  alone  in  a  world  where  there  is  no 
labor — for  in  the  case  of  the  majority,  nature,  the 
eternal  taskmaster,  will  always  make  labor  com- 
pulsory, so  long  as  stomachs  want  food  and  naked 
backs  want  clothing— there  constantly  has  been, 
and  there  may  be  again,  a  question  of  whether  this 
mass  of  ordinary  human  labor  shall  find  any  excep- 
tional ability  so  developed  and  so  organized  as  to 
direct  it.  In  the  earlier  states  of  society  no  such 
ability  was  operative.  In  savage  communities  it 
is  not  operative  now:  and  there  is  constantly  a 
question,  among  modern  civilized  nations,  whenever 
the  security  of  social  institutions  is  threatened,  of 
the  action  of  this  faculty  being  temporarily  sus- 
pended altogether,  either  because  those  persons 
possessing  it  are  deprived  of  the  motives  without 
which  they  will  not  exert  it,  or  else  because  the 
laborers  individually,  on  one  ground  or  another, 
are  impatient  of  submitting  themselves  to  the 
direction  of  any  intelligences  but  their  own. 

In  other  words,  when  we  are  seeking  to  measure 
the  products  due  respectively  to  directive  ability 
and  to  labor,  by  computing  what  would  happen  if 
either  of  these  agencies  were  withdrawn,  the  with- 
drawal of  one  of  them — that  is  to  say,  of  ability — 
can  alone  be  taken  as  possible  by  any  practical 
reasoner.  We  have  before  us  practically  two  alter- 
natives only.     One  is  a  condition  of  things  under 

198 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

which  the  exceptional  abihty  of  the  few  directs 
and  co-ordinates  the  labor  of  the  average  many. 
The  other  is  a  condition  of  things  under  which  the 
labor  of  the  average  many  has  to  exert  itself  with 
the  same  severe  continuity,  but  is  guided,  co- 
ordinated, and  stimulated  by  none  of  those  special 
faculties  which  raise  a  few  men  above  the  general 
level  of  efficiency.  When  these  special  faculties  are 
applied  to  the  direction  of  average  labor,  the  out- 
put of  wealth  increases.  When  their  application  is 
interfered  with  or  ceases,  the  output  of  wealth 
declines;  and  in  the  only  practical  sense  of  the 
words  "cause"  or  "producer,"  these  faculties  of 
direction,  or  the  exceptional  persons  who  exercise 
them,  are  the  true  causes  or  producers  of  the  whole 
of  that  portion  of  wealth  which  comes  into  being 
with  their  activity,  and  disappears  or  dwindles  with 
their  inaction. 

The  practical  validity  of  this  method  of  compu- 
tation has  been  formally  recognized,  though  not 
completely  understood,  by  some  of  the  later  social- 
ists themselves.  Mr.  Webb,  for  example,  and  his 
associates,  have  admitted  that,  of  the  wealth  of  the 
modern  world  a  considerable  part  consists  of  "the 
rent  of  business  ability."*     This  way  of  expressing 

1  General  Walker  also  seeks  to  assimilate  the  product  of 
ability  to  rent;  and  my  criticism  of  Mr.  Webb  in  this  respect 
applies  to  him  also.  General  Walker's  book  was  mentioned 
frequently  in  connection  with  my  late  addresses  in  America; 
and  it  was  said  by  one  or  two  critics  that  I  had  borrowed 
from,  and  ought  to  have  acknowledged  my  debt  to  him.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  I  never  saw  his  book  till  after  my  return  to 

199 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

the  matter  is  true  so  far  as  it  goes.  It  expresses, 
however,  one-half  of  the  truth  only.  Mr.  Webb 
and  his  friends  mean  that,  if  we  take  the  world  as 
it  is,  the  products  due  to  ability  in  any  given  in- 
dustry consist  of  the  quantity  by  which  the  prod- 
ucts of  one  firm,  because  it  is  managed  by  a  man 
of  superior  talent,  exceed  the  products  of  another 
firm  which  differs  from  the  first  only  in  the  fact 
that  it  is  managed  by  another  man  whose  talent 
is  not  so  great.  They  assume  as  their  starting- 
point,  in  every  case,  the  presence  of  directive 
ability  sufficient  to  organize  the  laborers  in  such  a 
way  that  the  products  of  the  entire  group  shall  pro- 
vide the  laborers  with  wages  which  are  up  to  a 
certain  standard,  and  a  minimum  of  profit  or  of 
surplus  values  besides.  This  lowest  grade  of  ability 
is  one  of  the  postulates  of  their  argument,  just  as  in 
calculating  agricultural  rent  the  first  postulate  of 
our  argument  is  a  lowest  grade  of  land. 

Now  in  connection  with  many  questions  of  a 
more  or  less  limited  kind,  this  assimilation  of  the 
products  of  superior  ability  to  rent,  and  of  ability 
of  a  lower  grade  to  land  which  is  practically  rent- 
England,  when  I  read  it  with  interest  and  admiration.  His 
doctrines  with  regard  to  the  entrepreneur  is,  so  far  as  it  goes, 
fundamentally  identical  with  the  main  argument  of  this 
volume.  My  criticism  of  him  would  be  that  he  does  not  give 
to  this  particular  part  of  his  doctrine  the  foremost  place 
which  logically  belongs  to  it;  and  that  though  attributing  to 
the  entrepreneur  some  special  productive  faculty  distinct  from 
labor,  he  starts  his  work  with  re-enumerating  the  old  doctrine 
that  labor,  capital,  and  law  are  the  only  factors  in  production. 

200 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

less,  will  serve  our  purpose  well  enough.  Between 
the  two  cases,  however,  there  is  a  vast  and  under- 
lying difference :  and  when  we  consider  our  present 
problem  under  its  widest  and  most  vital  aspect,  it 
is  the  difference,  not  the  likeness,  between  them, 
which  constitutes  our  main  concern.  The  nature 
of  this  difference  has  been  pointed  out  already. 
When  we  are  discussing  rent  and  agriculture,  land 
is  a  necessary  assumption;  for  unless  there  were 
land,  there  could  be  no  agriculture  at  all ;  but  there 
can  be,  has  been,  and  still  is  in  the  world,  abundance 
of  labor  without  directive  ability;  and  while  it 
would  be  meaningless  to  ask  what  would  happen 
to  rent  if  all  land  disappeared,  the  question  of  what 
would  happen  to  labor  if  all  ability  were  in  abeyance 
is  precisely  the  question  raised  by  all  schemes  of 
economic  revolution,  and  one  which  has  been  con- 
stantly illustrated  by  the  facts  of  economic  history. 
Of  such  facts  we  may  take  the  following  pict- 
uresque example:  In  the  eighteenth  century  the 
Jesuit  Fathers  in  Uruguay  succeeded  in  teaching 
the  natives  a  variety  of  Western  arts,  among  others 
that  of  watch-making,  and  so  long  as  the  Jesuits 
were  on  the  spot  to  direct  them  the  natives  ex- 
hibited much  manual  skill.  But  when,  owing  to 
political  causes,  the  Jesuits  were  driven  from  the 
country,  the  natives  sank  back  into  their  previous 
industrial  helplessness.  The  temporary  efficiency 
of  their  labor  had  been  due  to  the  ability  that 
directed  it;  and  as  soon  as  that  ability  was  with- 
drawn, the  labor  alone  shrank  to  its  true  propor- 

20I 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

tion.  Now  here  we  have  a  case  precisely  analogous 
to  that  which  we  have  to  deal  with  when  considering 
at  the  present  day  how  much  of  the  products  of 
any  civihzed  nation  is  produced  by  the  labor  of  the 
average  units  of  the  population,  and  how  much  by 
the  ability  of  the  exceptional  men  directing  them. 
It  is  not  a  question  of  how  much  this  or  that  group 
of  laborers,  which  is  directed  by  a  man  of  the  highest 
grade  of  ability,  produces  in  excess  of  the  products 
of  some  similar  group  which  is  directed  by  another 
man  whose  ability  is  somewhat  inferior.  It  is  a 
question  of  how  much  the  same  nation  would  pro- 
duce, if  every  director  of  other  men's  labor  were 
withdrawn,  and  the  present  laboring  units  left  to 
their  own  devices.  These  two  questions,  though 
not  mutually  exclusive,  differ  as  much  as  the  ques- 
tion of  why  one  of  two  balloons  rises  above  the 
earth  to  a  height  of  three  miles  and  a  furlong,  while 
a  second  balloon  reaches  the  height  of  three  miles 
only,  differs  from  the  question  of  why  either  of 
them  rises  in  the  air  at  all.  Mr.  Webb  and  his 
friends,  with  their  theory  of  the  rent  of  ability, 
confine  themselves  to  the  first  of  these — namely, 
the  question  of  why  one  balloon  rises  a  furlong 
higher  than  the^  other.  The  real  question  which 
we  have  to  deal  with  here  is  why  both  balloons  lift 
their  aeronauts  at  least  three  miles  into  the  clouds, 
while  other  men  who  have  no  balloon  to  lift  them 
can  get  no  higher  than  the  top  of  the  church  steeple. 
Or  to  come  back  to  literal  fact,  our  problem  must 
be  expressed  thus :  Let  us  take  the  present  popula- 

202 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

tion  of  America  or  Great  Britain,  and,  having  noted 
the  wealth  at  present  annually  produced  by  it,  ask 
ourselves  what  would  happen  if  some  duly  qualified 
angel  were  to  pick  out  and  kill,  or  otherwise  make 
away  with,  one  man  out  of  every  ten,  who,  in  virtue 
of  his  assimilated  scientific  knowledge,  his  inventive 
gifts,  his  constructive  and  practical  imagination, 
his  energy,  his  initiative,  and  his  natural  powers  of 
leadership,  was  better  able  to  direct  the  other  nine 
than  the  other  nine  were  able  to  direct  themselves. 
We  cannot  make  this  experiment  in  precisely 
the  way  described ;  but  history  will  provide  us  with 
equivalents  which  are  sufficiently  accurate  for  our 
purpose.  There  are,  for  example,  in  the  case  of 
Great  Britain,  data  which  have  enabled  statisticians 
with  a  considerable  degree  of  unanimity  to  estimate 
the  values  produced  per  head  of  the  industrial 
population  at  various  periods  from  the  reign  of 
Charles  II.  till  to-day,  and  to  reduce  these  values 
to  comparable  terms  of  money.  Now  we  need  not 
insist  too  much  on  the  accuracy  of  the  figures  in 
question;  but  one  broad  fact  is  unmistakably 
shown  by  them — that  the  product  per  head  towards 
the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century  was,  to  say  the 
least  of  it,  from  four  to  five  times  as  great  as  it 
was  towards  the  close  of  the  sixteenth.  To  what, 
then,  was  this  increase  in  industrial  productivity 
due?  It  \vas  not  due  to  any  change  in  the  spon- 
taneous workings  of  nature.  It  can  only  have 
been  due  to  some  change  in  the  character  of  human 
effort — either  in  that  of  the  effort  of  each  separate 

203 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

manual  laborer,  or  else  in  that  of  the  men  by  whom 
the  labor  of  others  is  directed.  The  average  la- 
borer, however,  at  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury did  not  differ,  as  an  isolated  laboring  unit, 
from  the  average  laborer  as  he  was  at  the  time 
of  the  fire  of  London.  The  increase  in  industrial 
productivity  must  therefore  be  necessarily  due  to 
a  change  in  the  ability  of  those  by  whom  the 
laborers  are  organized  and  directed.  And  here 
a  priori  reasoning  is  confirmed  by  actual  fact;  for 
the  change  which  has  taken  place  in  the  class  which 
directs  the  labor  of  others,  has  been  during  the 
period  in  question  of  the  most  notorious  and 
astonishing  kind.  That  class  had  been  progres- 
sively absorbing  into  itself,  and  concentrating  on 
the  conduct  of  industry,  ambitions,  intelligences, 
and  strong  practical  wills,  which  formerly  found 
their  outlets  in  very  different  channels — ecclesias- 
tical, political,  and  more  especially  military.  Man 
for  man,  then,  industry  became  more  productive, 
because  to  an  increasing  degree  the  ablest  men  of 
the  nation  concentrated  their  exceptional  powers 
on  directing  the  business  of  production;  and  any 
one  who  wished  to  push  things  to  an  extreme  con- 
clusion might  contend  that  the  entire  amount — 
some  four  or  five  hundred  per  cent. — by  which  the 
product  per  head  in  the  year  1880  exceeded  the 
product  per  head  some  two  hundred  years  before, 
was  due  to  directive  ability,  and  directive  ability 
only;  and  that  the  laborers,  in  their  capacity  of 
laborers,  had  no  claim  whatsoever  to  it.     We  will, 

204 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

however,  put  the  case  in  a  much  more  moderate 
form.  We  will,  for  argument's  sake,  concede  to 
self-directed  labor  all  that  increase  in  the  values 
produced  per  head,  which  took  place  between 
the  time  of  Charles  II.  and  the  general  establish- 
ment in  Great  Britain  of  the  modern  industrial 
system,  with  its  huge  mills  and  factories,  and  its 
concomitant  differentiation  of  the  directing  class 
from  the  directed — an  event  which  had  been  se- 
curely accomplished  at  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  In  making  this  concession,  we 
shall,  indeed,  be  defying  fact,  and  ignoring  the 
improvements,  alike  in  manufacture  and  agricult- 
ure, which  had  taken  place  during  the  hundred 
years  preceding,  especially  during  the  last  fifty  of 
them,  and  which  were  solely  due  to  a  minority  of 
exceptionally  able  men.  We  shall  thus  be  conced- 
ing to  the  laborer  far  more  than  his  due.  Certainly 
no  one  can  contend  that  we  concede  too  little. 

Let  us  take,  then,  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 
century  as  our  starting-point;  and  assuming  that 
labor  was  the  sole  producer  then,  compare  its  pro- 
ductivity per  head  with  the  productivity  of  indus- 
trial effort — of  labor  and  ability  combined — some 
eight  or  nine  decades  later.  If  at  the  beginning  of 
the  nineteenth  century  the  entire  wealth  of  all 
classes  in  Great  Britain — including  that  of  all  the 
landlords,  traders,  and  manufacturers — had  been 
pooled  and  divided  equally,  the  income  of  each 
family  would  have  been  about  eighty  pounds. 
Eighty  years  later  the  wages  of  the  laboring  class 

205 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

alone  would,  if  pooled  and  divided  in  the  same  way, 
have  yielded  to  each  laborer's  family  an  income  of 
a  hundred  and  sixteen  potmds.  Thus  the  laborers 
of  Great  Britain  as  a  body,  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
other  classes,  actually  divided  among  themselves, 
about  the  year  1880,  more  wealth  per  head — some- 
thing like  forty-five  per  cent. — than  would  have 
been  theirs  if  they  had  lived  in  the  days  of  their 
own  grandfathers,  and  been  able  to  appropriate  as 
wages  the  income  of  the  entire  country. 

Let  us,  then,  repeat  the  question  which  we  asked 
just  now.  Where  has  this  addition  to  the  income 
of  labor  come  from  ?  That  part  of  it  is  attributable 
to  ability— the  ability  of  the  Watts,  the  Stephen- 
sons,  the  Arkwrights,  the  Bessemers,  the  Edisons, 
and  so  forth — nobody  in  his  senses  w^ill  deny.  Can 
it  be  said  that  any  of  it  is  attributable  to  labor? 
The  period  now  under  consideration  is  so  brief  that 
this  question  is  not  hard  to  answ^er.  It  can  easily 
be  shown  that  man,  as  a  laborer  skilled  or  unskilled, 
has  acquired  individually  no  new  efficiencies  since 
— to  say  the  least  of  it — the  days  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans.  An  ancient  gem-engraver  would  to-day 
be  eminent  among  modern  craftsmen.  The  imple- 
ments of  the  Roman  surgeons,  the  proportional 
compasses  used  by  the  Roman  architects,  the  force- 
pumps  and  taps  used  in  the  Roman  houses — all 
things  that  could  be  produced  by  a  man  directing 
his  own  muscles — were  produced  in  the  Rome  of 
Nero  as  perfectly  as  they  could  be  produced  to-day. 
To  this  fact  our  museums  bear  ample  and  minute 

206 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

witness ;  while  the  Colosseum  and  the  Parthenon  are 
quite  enough  to  show  that  the  masons  of  the  ancient 
world  were  at  least  the  equals  of  our  own.  If  no 
advance,  then,  in  the  quality  of  manual  labor  as 
such  has  taken  place  in  the  course  of  two  thousand 
years,  it  is  idle  to  contend  that  its  powers  have 
increased  in  the  course  of  eighty.  But  a  still  more 
remarkable  proof  that  they  actually  have  not  done 
so,  and  that  no  such  increase  has  contributed  to 
the  increase  of  modem  wealth,  is  supplied  by  events 
belonging  to  these  eighty  years  themselves.  I  refer 
to  the  policy  pursued  by  the  trade-unions  of  re- 
ducing the  practical  efficiency  of  all  their  members 
alike  to  the  level  which  can  be  reached  by  those  of 
them  who  are  least  active  and  dexterous.  Brick- 
layers, for  example,  are  forbidden  by  the  English 
unions  to  lay,  in  a  given  time,  more  than  a  certain 
number  of  bricks,  though  by  many  of  them  this 
number  could  be  doubled,  and  by  some  trebled,  with 
ease.  Now  although,  from  the  point  of  view  of 
those  bodies  who  adopt  it,  such  a  policy  has  many 
advantages,  and  is  perhaps  a  tactical  necessity,  this 
levelling  down  of  labor  to  the  minimum  of  individ- 
ual efficiency  is  denounced  by  many  critics  as  a  pre- 
lude to  industrial  suicide,  and  the  alarm  which  these 
persons  feel  is  doubtless  intelligible  enough.  It  is, 
however,  largely  superfluous.  The  levelling  process 
in  question  must  of  course  involve  a  certain  amount 
of  waste ;  but  its  effect  on  production  as  a  whole  is 
under  most  circumstances  inappreciable.  Build- 
ing as  a  whole  is  not  checked  by  the  fact  that  the 

207 


A  CRITICAL   EXMIINATIOxN   OF   SOCIALISM 

best  bricklayers  may  do  no  more  than  the  worst. 
All  kinds  of  commodities  are  multiplied,  improved, 
and  cheapened,  while  thousands  of  the  operatives 
whose  labor  is  involved  in  their  production  are 
allowed  to  attend  to  but  one  machine,  when  they 
might  easily  attend  to  three.  In  a  word,  while  the 
unions  have  been  doing  their  effective  best  to  keep 
labor,  as  a  productive  agent,  stationary,  or  even 
to  diminish  its  efficiency,  the  product  of  industry 
as  a  whole  exhibits  an  unchecked  increase.  And 
what  is  the  explanation  of  this?  Little  as  the 
trade-unions  realize  the  fact  themselves,  their  own 
policy  is  an  object-lesson  which  supplies  us  with 
the  simple  answer.  The  answer  is  that  the  increase 
of  modern  wealth — certainly  its  increase  during  the 
past  eighty  years — has  not  been  due  to  any  change 
in  the  efficiency  of  labor  at  all ;  that  labor  is  merely 
a  unit  which  directive  ability  multiplies ;  that  if  in 
the  year  1800  labor  produced  everything,  and  its 
total  products  then  be  expressed  by  the  number 
five,  the  products  of  the  industrial  population  would 
be  five  per  head  still,  if  ability,  as  a  multiplying 
number,  successively  expressible  by  tw^o  and  three 
and  four,  had  not  increased  the  quotient  to  ten,  fif- 
teen, and  twenty;  ability  thus  being  the  producer, 
not  indeed  of  the  five  with  which  we  start,  but  of 
all  the  increasing  differences  between  this  and  the 
larger  numbers. 

To  return  then  to  definite  facts,  since  in  the  year 
1800  an  equal  division  of  all  the  wealth  of  Great 
Britain  would  have  yielded  to  each  family  an  in- 

208 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

come  of  eighty  pounds,  and  since  eighty  years  later 
an  equal  division  of  the  total  which  was  actually 
appropriated  as  wages  by  wage-paid  labor  alone, 
would  have  yielded  to  each  laborer's  family  thirty- 
six  pounds  in  addition,  or  an  increment  of  forty- 
five  per  cent.,  the  laboring  class  as  a  whole  in  Great 
Britain  to-day,  instead  of  receiving  less  than  its 
labor  produces,  receives  on  the  lowest  computation 
forty-five  per  cent.  more.  Or,  to  put  the  matter 
otherwise,  one-third  of  its  present  income  is  drawn 
from  a  fund  which  would  cease  to  have  any  exist- 
ence if  it  were  not  for  the  continued  activity  of  a 
specially  gifted  class,  by  whose  brains  the  data  of 
science  are  being  constantly  remastered  and  re- 
assimilated,  and  by  whose  energy  they  are  applied 
to  the  minds  and  muscles  of  the  many  from  the 
earliest  hour  of  each  working  day  to  the  latest. 
And  what  is  true  of  labor,  its  products,  and  re- 
ceipts in  Great  Britain,  is  broadly  true  of  them  in 
America  and  all  other  countries  also,  where  modern 
capitalism  has  arrived  at  the  same  stage  of  de- 
velopment. 

We  are,  let  me  say  once  more,  not  here  contem- 
plating individual  cases.  Of  the  total  wage-fund 
divided  among  the  laborers  in  any  given  country, 
too  much  may  be  given  to  some  men,  and  too  little 
to  others;  but  of  every  million  dollars  w^hich  a 
million  of  such  men  receive,  three  hundred  thousand 
dollars  are  distributed  well  or  ill,  which  have  not 
been  produced  by  the  efforts  of  these  men  them- 
selves, but  are  due  to  the  efforts  of  a  class  which  is 

209 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

definitely  outside  their  own.  If,  then,  it  is  con- 
tended that  the  just  reward  of  labor  is  that  total 
of  wealth  which  labor  itself  produces,  the  idea  that 
labor,  in  respect  of  its  pecuniary  remuneration,  is, 
under  present  conditions,  the  victim  of  any  general 
wrong,  is  so  far  from  having  any  justification  in 
fact  that  it  only  touches  fact  at  all  by  representing 
a  direct  inversion  of  it.  Labor,  as  a  whole,  does 
not,  under  existing  conditions,  get  less  than  it  pro- 
duces.^ It  gets  a  very  great  deal  more.  If,  there- 
fore, the  claims  of  labor  are  based  on,  and  limited 
to,  the  amount  of  wealth  w^hich  is  produced  by 
labor  itself — that  is  to  say,  the  total  which  it  would 
now  produce  were  the  faculties  of  the  directing  and 
organizing  minority  paralyzed— what  labor,  thus 
appropriating  the  entire  product,  would  receive, 
would  be  far  less,  not  more,  than  what  it  actually 
receives  to-day.     Instead  of  defrauding  it  of  any 

*  A  letter  was  sent  me  by  a  friend  in  America,  from  a  writer 
who,  commenting  on  my  late  addresses  in  that  country,  said 
that  in  the  main  he  entirely  agreed  with  my  arguments,  as 
against  socialism;  but  that  he  could  not  divest  himself  of  the 
belief  that  labor  as  a  whole  got  less  than  it  produced,  and  was 
thus  as  a  whole  suffering  a  chronic  wrong.  He  suggested, 
however,  a  method,  fundamentally  analogous  to  that  set  forth 
in  the  text,  of  computing  what  labor,  as  such,  does  produce  in 
reality.  He  gave  his  own  opinion  as  to  actual  facts,  as  an 
impression  merely;  but  how  misleading  impressions  may  be 
can  be  seen  from  his  statements  "that  all  very  great  fortunes, 
at  all  events,  must  be  derived  from  the  underpayment  of  labor." 
Had  he  only  considered  the  case  in  detail,  he  would  have  seen 
that  labor  received  the  highest  wages  from  some  of  the  richest 
employers.  According  to  his  theory  the  wages  of  labor,  in 
such  cases,  would  touch  the  minimum. 

2IO 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

part  of  its  due,  the  existing  system  is  treating  it 
with  an  extreme  and  even  wanton  generosity. 

Is  it,  then,  here  contended,  many  readers  will 
ask,  that  if  matters  are  determined  by  ideal  jus- 
tice, or  anything  like  practical  wisdom,  the  re- 
muneration of  labor  in  general  ought  henceforth 
to  be  lessened,  or  at  all  events  precluded  from  any 
possibility  of  increase?  Is  it  contended  that  the 
employing  and  directing  class  should  attempt  or 
even  desire  to  take  back  from  those  directed  by  it 
every  increment  of  wealth  possessed  by  them  which 
is  not  produced  by  themselves  ?  If  any  one  thinks 
that  such  is  the  conclusion  which  is  here  suggested, 
let  him  suspend  his  opinion  until,  as  we  shall  do  in 
another  chapter,  we  return  to  the  subject  and  deal 
with  it  in  a  more  comprehensive  way.  Our  con- 
clusion, as  for  the  moment  we  must  now  be  content 
to  leave  it,  is  not  that  the  laborers  have  not  a  claim, 
practically  valid,  to  the  only  portion  of  their  income 
which  has  any  tendency  to  grow,  but  merely  that 
they  should  understand  the  source  from  which  this 
portion  is  drawn — a  source  which  consists  of  the 
efforts  of  other  men,  not  of  their  own. 

And  now,  before  we  return  to  this  particular 
question,  we  will  go  on  to  deal  with  another  which 
to  a  certain  extent  overlaps  it,  but  is  narrower  in 
its  compass,  and  seems,  for  that  very  reason,  to 
many  minds  of  greater  practical  moment.  I  mean 
the  question  of  interest,  or  the  income,  which  comes 
to  its  recipients  without  any  necessary  effort  on 
their  own  part  to  correspond  to  it. 

211 


CHAPTER  XIII 

INTEREST  AND  ABSTRACT  JUSTICE 

The  proposal  to  confiscate  interest  for  the  public  benefit, 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  income  unconnected  with  any  corre- 
sponding effort. 

Is  the  proposal  practicable  ?  Is  it  defensible  on  grounds  of 
abstract  justice  ? 

The  abstract  moral  argument  plays  a  large  part  in  the  dis- 
cussion. 

It  assumes  that  a  man  has  a  moral  right  to  what  he  produces, 
interest  being  here  contrasted  with  this,  as  a  something  which 
he  does  not  produce. 

Defects  of  this  argument.  It  ignores  the  element  of  time. 
Some  forms  of  effort  are  productive  long  after  the  effort  itself 
has  ceased. 

For  example,  royalties  on  an  acted  play.  Such  royalties 
herein  typical  of  interest  generally. 

Industrial  interest  as  a  product  of  the  forces  of  organic 
nature.  Henry  George's  defence  of  interest  as  having  this 
origin. 

His  argument  true,  but  imperfect.  His  superficial  criticism 
of  Bastiat. 

Nature  works  through  machine-capital  just  as  truly  as  it 
does  in  agriculture. 

Machines  are  natural  forces  captured  by  men  of  genius,  and 
set  to  work  for  the  benefit  of  human  beings. 

Interest  on  machine-capital  is  part  of  an  extra  product  which 
nature  is  made  to  yield  by  those  men  who  are  exceptionally 
capable  of  controlling  her. 

By  capturing  natural  forces,  one  man  of  genius  may  add  more 

212 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

to  the  wealth  of  the  world  in  a  year  than  an  ordinary  man 
could  add  to  it  in  a  hundred  lifetimes. 

The  claim  of  any  such  man  on  the  products  of  his  genius  is 
limited  by  a  variety  of  circixmstances ;  but,  as  a  mere  matter  of 
abstract  justice,  the  whole  of  it  belongs  to  him. 

Abstract  justice,  however,  in  a  case  like  this,  gives  us  no 
practical  guidance,  until  we  interpret  it  in  connection  with 
concrete  facts,  and  translate  the  just  into  terms  of  the  prac- 
ticable. 


The  essential  feature  of  interest,  as  distinct  from 
the  income  due  to  active  ability,  is  that  while  the 
latter  ceases  as  soon  as  the  able  man  ceases  to 
exert  himself,  the  former  continues  to  replenish  the 
recipient's  pockets,  though  for  his  part  he  does 
nothing,  or  need  do  nothing,  in  return  for  it.  Since, 
then,  the  possession  of  this  particular  form  of  in- 
come is  admittedly  unconnected  with  any  con- 
current exertion  on  the  part  of  those  possessing 
it  (such  is  the  argument  of  the  objectors)  the 
whole  portion  of  the  national  wealth  which,  in  the 
form  of  interest,  is  at  present  appropriated  by  the 
presumably  or  the  possibly  idle,  might  obviously  be 
appropriated  by  the  state,  and  applied  to  public 
purposes,  without  lessening  in  any  way  even  the 
highest  of  those  rewards  which  are  due  to,  and  are 
needed  to  stimulate  any  active  ability  whatsoever, 
and  hence  w^ithout  lessening  the  efficiency  of  the 
wealth-producing  process  as  a  whole.  If  we  adopt 
the  programme  which  this  argument  suggests,  it 
will  be  possible,  so  its  advocates  say,  to  satisfy  the 
demands  of  labor  by  a  shorter  and  more  direct 
method  than  that  of  committing  ourselves  to  an 
IS  213 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

estimate  of  what  labor  actually  produces,  and  en- 
deavoring to  secure  that  the  total  which  is  paid  to 
labor  shall  accord  with  it. 

Now  this  programme  raises  two  separate  ques- 
tions. One  question  is  whether  the  proposed  con- 
fiscation of  interest  is  in  reality,  as  its  advocates 
maintain  it  to  be,  practicable  in  the  sense  that 
the  disturbances  which  it  would  necessarily  cause 
would  not  interfere  with  the  production  of  the 
fund  which  it  is  desired  to  distribute,  and  so  per- 
haps leave  all  classes  poorer  and  not  richer  than 
they  are.  The  other  question  is  whether  such  a 
confiscation  w^ould  be  just.  To  some  people  this 
second  question  will  possibly  seem  superfluous.  If 
it  can  be  shown,  they  will  say,  that  a  policy,  the 
avowed  object  of  which  is  the  enrichment  of  the 
many  at  the  expense  of  the  relatively  few,  could  be 
really  carried  out  successfully,  and  if  the  many  had 
the  power  of  insisting  on  it,  an  inquiry  into  its 
abstract  justice  is  merely  a  waste  of  time;  for 
whenever  the  wolf  is  face  to  face  with  the  lamb,  it 
will  eat  up  the  lamb  first  and  justify  its  conduct 
afterwards.  And  in  this  argument  there  is  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  truth;  but  those  who  take  it  for 
the  whole  truth  allow  their  own  cynicism  to  over- 
reach them.  The  fact  remains  that  even  the 
wolves  of  the  human  world  are  obliged  to  assume, 
as  a  kind  of  necessary  armor,  and  often  as  their 
principal  weapon,  a  semblance  of  justice,  however 
they  may  despise  the  reality.  The  brigand  chief 
justifies  his  war  on  society  by  declaring  that  society 

214 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

has  unjustly  made  war  on  him.  The  wildest  dema- 
gogues, in  their  appeals  to  popular  passion,  as  the 
history  of  the  French  Revolution  and  of  all  revolu- 
tions shows  us,  have  always  been  obliged  to  exhibit 
the  demands  of  mere  self-interest  as  based  on  some 
general  theory  of  what  is  morally  just  or  right ;  and 
however  much  the  theory  may  accommodate  itself 
to  the  hope  of  private  advantage,  there  are  few 
demands  made  for  any  great  social  change  which 
do  not  derive  a  large  part  of  their  force  from  persons 
with  whom  a  belief  in  the  justice  of  the  demands 
stands  first,  while — so  far  at  least  as  their  own  con- 
sciousness is  concerned — the  prospect  of  personal 
advantage  stands  second  or  nowhere.  This  is  cer- 
tainly so  in  the  case  which  we  are  now  considering. 
We  will,  therefore,  begin  with  the  question  of  ab- 
stract justice. 

Let  us  begin,  then,  with  reminding  ourselves 
that  when  interest  is  attacked  as  such,  on  the 
ground  that  its  recipients  have  themselves  done 
nothing  to  produce  it,  whereas  other  incomes,  no 
matter  how  large,  are  presumably  the  equivalents 
of  some  personal  effort  which  corresponds  to  them, 
it  is  assiimed  that  every  man  has,  in  natural  justice, 
a  right  to  such  wealth  as  he  actually  himself  pro- 
duces ;  and  what  he  produces,  as  we  saw  in  the  last 
chapter,  is  that  amount  of  wealth  which  would  not 
have  been  produced  at  all  had  his  efforts  not  been 
made,  or  been  other  or  less  intense  than  they  have 
been. 

Thus  far,  then,  for  the  purposes  of  the  present 
215 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

discussion,  all  parties  are  agreed;  but  the  moment 
the  assailants  of  interest  take  the  next  step  in  their 
argument,  we  shall  find  that  their  errors  begin — 
errors  resulting,  as  we  shall  see,  from  an  imperfect 
analysis  of  facts.  For  them  the  two  types  of  cor- 
respondence between  productive  effort  and  product 
are,  firstly,  the  manual  laborer,  who  performs  some 
daily  task  such  as  riveting  plates  or  bricklaying, 
and  receives  an  equivalent  in  wages  at  the  end  of 
each  day  or  week;  and,  secondly,  the  manager  of 
some  great  industrial  enterprise,  who  spends  each 
day  so  many  hours  in  his  office,  issuing  minute 
directions  with  regard  to  the  conduct  of  his  subor- 
dinates, and  sending  his  receipts  to  the  bank  as 
they  come  in  from  his  customers.  But  these  types, 
though  accurate  so  far  as  they  go,  do  but  cover  a 
part  of  the  actual  field  of  fact.  Practically,  though 
of  course  not  absolutely,  they  ignore  the  element  of 
time.  They  represent  effort  and  product  as  being 
always  so  nearly  simultaneous  that,  although  the 
former  must  literally  precede  the  latter,  yet,  if  we 
estimate  life  in  terms  of  years,  or  even  months,  or 
weeks,  a  man  has  ceased  to  produce  as  soon  as  he 
has  ceased  to  work. 

Now  of  certain  forms  of  effort  this  may  be  true 
enough.  A  bricklayer,  for  example,  as  soon  as  he 
ceases  to  lay  bricks,  ceases  to  produce  anything. 
His  wall-building  closes  its  efifects  with  the  walls 
which  he  himself  has  built.  It  does  nothing  to 
facilitate  the  building  of  other  walls  in  the  future. 
Similarly  such  ability  as  consists  in  a  gift  for  per- 

216 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

sonal  management  often  ends  its  effects,  and  leaves 
no  trace  behind  it,  as  soon  as  the  manager  possess- 
ing these  gifts  retires. 

But  with  many  forms  of  ability  the  case  is  pre- 
cisely opposite.  The  products  of  their  exercise  do 
not  even  begin  to  appear  till  after — often  till  long 
after  —  the  exercise  of  the  ability  itself  has  alto- 
gether come  to  an  end.  Let  us,  for  example,  take 
the  case  of  a  play;  and  since  socialists  are  still 
included  among  the  objectors  whom  we  have  in 
view,  let  us  take  one  of  the  popular  plays  written 
by  Mr.  Bernard  Shaw.  Such  a  play,  as  Mr.  Shaw 
has  publicly  boasted — for  otherwise  I  should  not 
mention,  and  should  know  nothing  of  his  private 
affairs — brings  to  its  author  wealth  in  the  form  of 
amazing  royalties;  but  until  it  is  acted  it  brings 
him  no  royalties  at  all ;  and  the  actors  begin  with 
it  only  when  his  own  efforts  are  ended.  Moreover, 
not  only  do  these  royalties  only  begin  then,  but 
having  once  begun,  they  have  no  tendency  to  ex- 
haust themselves.  On  the  contrary  the  chances  are 
that  they  will  go  on  increasing  till  the  time  arrives, 
if  it  ever  does,  when  Mr.  Shaw  is  no  longer  appre- 
ciated. Mr.  Shaw,  in  fact,  if  he  had  written  one  of 
his  most  successful  plays  at  twenty,  might,  so  far 
as  that  play  is  concerned,  be  idle  forever  afterwards, 
even  if  he  lived  to  the  age  of  Methuselah,  and  still 
be  enjoying  in  royalties  the  product  of  his  own 
exertions,  though  he  had  not  exerted  himself  pro- 
ductively for  some  seven  or  eight  hundred  years. 

There  is  no  question  here  of  whether,  under  these 
217 


A   CRITICAL   EXAxMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

conditions,  a  person  like  Mr.  Shaw  might  not  feel 
himself  constrained  on  some  ground  or  other  to 
surrender  his  copyright  at  some  period  prior  to  his 
own  demise.  The  one  point  here  insisted  on  is 
that  he  could  not  renounce  it  on  the  ground  that 
the  wealth  protected  by  it  was  no  longer  produced 
by  himself.  If  he  is  entitled  to  the  royalties  re- 
sulting from  the  performance  of  his  play  at  any 
time,  on  the  ground  that  every  man  has  a  right  to 
the  products  of  his  own  exertions,  his  right  to  the 
royalties  resulting  from  its  ten-thousandth  perform- 
ance is,  on  this  ground,  as  good  as  his  right  to  the 
royalties  resulting  from  the  first.  The  royalties  on 
a  play,  in  short,  show  how  certain  fomis  of  effort, 
though  not  all,  continue  to  yield  a  product  for  an 
indefinite  period,  though  the  original  effort  itself 
may  be  never  again  repeated;  and  herem  these 
royalties  are  typical  of  modern  interest  generally. 
They  do  not,  however,  constitute  in  themselves 
more  than  a  small  part  of  it.  We  will  therefore 
turn  to  interest  of  other  kinds,  the  details  of  whose 
genesis  are  indeed  widely  different,  but  which  con- 
sist similarly  of  a  constant  repetition  of  values, 
without  any  corresponding  repetition  of  the  effort 
in  which  the  series  originated. 

Those  which  we  will  consider  first  are  the  prod- 
ucts of  organic  nature,  which  have  been  dwelt 
upon  by  a  well-known  writer  as  showing  us  the 
ultimate  source  of  industrial  interest  generally,  and 
also  at  the  same  time  its  natural  and  essential 
justice.     It  may  be  a  surprise  to  some  to  learn  who 

218 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

this  writer  is.  He  is  Henry  George,  who  is  best 
known  to  the  pubHc  as  the  advocate  of  a  measure 
of  confiscation  so  crude  and  so  arbitrary,  that  even 
socialists  have  condemned  it  as  impracticable  with- 
out serious  modifications.  Henry  George,  how- 
ever, although  he  outdid  most  socialists  in  his 
attack  on  private  wealth  of  one  particular  kind — 
that  is  to  say,  the  rent  of  land — was  equally  vehe- 
ment in  his  defence  of  the  interest  of  industrial  capi- 
tal. Socialists  say — and  the  aphorism  is  constantly 
repeated — "A  man  can  get  an  income  only  by 
working  or  stealing:  there  is  no  third  way,"  In 
answer  to  this,  it  was  pointed  out  by  George  that 
one  kind  of  wealth,  at  all  events — and  we  may  add 
that  here  w^e  have  wealth  in  its  oldest  form — con- 
sists of  possessions  yielding  a  natural  increase, 
which  has  been  neither  made  by  the  possessors,  nor 
yet  stolen  by  them  from  anybody  else.  That  is  to 
say,  it  consists  of  flocks  and  herds.  A  shepherd  or 
herdsman  starts  with  a  single  pair  of  animals,  from 
which  parents  there  arises  a  large  progeny.  This 
living  increment  has  not  been  produced  by  the 
man,  but  it  is  still  more  obvious  that  it  has  not 
been  produced  by  his  neighbors;  and  it  therefore 
belongs  in  justice  to  the  man  who  owns  the  parents. 
George  pointed  out  also  that  whole  classes  of  pos- 
sessions besides  are,  for  by  far  the  larger  part  of 
their  value,  equally  independent  either  of  corre- 
sponding work  or  of  theft.  Among  such  possessions 
are  wines,  whose  quality  improves  with  time,  and 
which,  if  sold  to-day,  may  be  worth  twenty  cents 

219 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

a  bottle,  but  which  four  years  hence  may  be  worth 
more  than  a  dollar.  In  all  such  cases — this  was 
George's  contention — we  have  some  possession  orig- 
inally small  to  start  with,  which  year  by  year  is 
increased  in  amount  or  at  least  in  value,  if  not  by 
the  efforts  of  the  possessor  by  the  secret  operations 
of  nature.  Here,  he  argued,  we  have  capital  in  its 
typical  form;  and  interest  is  the  gift  of  nature  to 
the  man  by  whom  the  capital  is  owned. 

George,  however,  is  constrained  to  supplement 
this  proposition  by  another.  Though  he  assumes 
that  of  the  products  which  are,  in  the  modern  world, 
actually  paid  as  interest  by  the  borrower  of  capital 
to  the  owners  of  it  the  larger  part  consists  of  gifts 
of  unaided  nature,  he  admits  that  they  are  not  the 
whole.  He  admits  that  a  part  of  it  is  paid  for  the 
use  of  machinery.  Now  such  interest,  he  says,  has 
a  definitely  different  origin,  and  cannot  intrinsical- 
ly be  justified  in  the  same  way;  and  if  all  wealth 
consisted  of  such  commodities  as  are  due  to  the 
efforts  of  man,  and  to  the  man-made  machinery 
which  assists  him,  all  interest  would  be  really,  as 
it  is  said  to  be  by  some,  indefensible.  But,  he  con- 
tinues, since  interest  on  capital  such  as  machinery 
is  not  the  whole  of  the  interest  paid  in  the  modern 
world,  but  is  only  a  minor  part  of  it,  and  since  in 
the  modern  world  all  forms  of  capital  are  inter- 
changeable, the  laws  which  govern  us  in  our  deal- 
ings with  the  lesser  quantity  must  necessarily  be 
assimilated  to  those  which  govern  us  in  our  dealings 
with  the  greater.     If  a  ram  and  a  sheep  are  capital 

220 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

which  yields  just  interest,  because  their  wool  and 
their  progeny  are  increments  due  to  nature,  and  if 
a  ram  and  a  sheep  are  exchangeable  for  some  kind 
of  machine,  the  possession  of  the  one  must  be  placed 
on  a  par  with  the  possession  of  the  other.  The 
machine  must  be  treated,  though  it  is  not  so  in 
strictness,  as  if  it  were  prolific  in  the  same  sense  as 
the  beasts  are;  and  a  part  of  what  it  is  used  to 
produce  must  be  paid  by  the  user  to  the  owner 
of  it. 

Now  both  these  arguments  are  in  principle  sound. 
The  first,  indeed,  touches  the  very  root  of  the  whole 
matter ;  but  the  first  is  exaggerated  in  his  statement 
of  it,  and  unduly  limited  in  his  application;  and 
the  second  is  wholly  unnecessary  for  proving  what 
he  desires  to  prove.  The  first  is  exaggerated  in  his 
statement  of  it  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
kind  of  capital  whose  interest  is  described  by  him 
as  the  gift  of  nature  is  not  the  major,  it  is  only  a 
mmor  part  of  the  capital  yielding  interest  under 
the  conditions  which  obtain  to-day.  A  part  far 
larger  is  capital  in  the  form  of  machinery;  and  if 
the  distinction  which  George  draws  between  the 
two  is  a  true  one,  the  case  of  the  flocks  and  herds 
should  be  assimilated  to  that  of  the  machines,  not 
the  case  of  the  machines  to  that  of  the  flocks  and 
herds.  Interest  should  be  denied  to  both  because 
the  former  do  not  produce  it,  instead  of  being  con- 
ceded to  both  because  the  latter  really  do  so.  We 
shall  find,  however,  that  the  distinction  which 
George  seeks  to  establish  is  illusory,  that  both  kinds 

221 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATIOxN   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  capital  yield  interest  in  the  same  way,  and  that 
his  justification  of  it  in  the  one  case  is  equally 
applicable  to  it  in  the  other. 

His  attempt  to  distinguish  between  the  two 
takes  the  form  of  a  criticism  of  Bastiat,  according 
to  whom  the  typical  source  of  interest  is  the  added 
productivity  which  a  given  amount  of  human  effort 
acquires  by  the  use  of  certain  lendable  implements. 
As  a  type  of  such  implements  or  machines,  Bastiat 
takes  a  plane.  The  maker  of  a  plane  lends  this 
plane  to  another  man,  who  is  thus  enabled  to  finish 
off  in  a  week  four  more  planks  than  he  could  have 
done  had  he  used  an  adze.  If,  at  the  end  of  the 
week,  the  borrower  does  nothing  more  than  return 
the  plane  in  good  repair  to  the  lender,  the  borrower 
gains  by  the  transaction,  but  the  maker  and  lender 
not  only  gains  nothing,  he  loses.  For  a  week  he 
loses  his  implement  which  he  otherwise  might  have 
used  himself,  and  the  extra  planks  which,  by  the 
use  of  it,  he  could  have  produced  just  as  easily  as 
his  fellow.  Such  an  arrangement  would  be  ob- 
viously and  absurdly  unjust.  Justice  demands — 
and  practice  here  follows  justice — that  he  get  at 
the  end  of  the  week,  not  only  his  own  plane  back 
again,  but  two  of  the  extra  planks  due  to  its  use 
besides.  A  plane,  in  short — such  is  Bastiat's  mean- 
ing, though  he  does  not  put  it  in  this  precise  way — 
is  a  possession  which  is  fruitful  no  less  than  a  sheep 
and  a  ram  are,  or  a  wine  which  adds  to  its  value 
by  the  mere  process  of  being  kept,  and  therefore 
yields    interest    for    a    virtually    similar    reason. 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

George,  however,  seeks  to  dispose  of  Bastiat's  argu- 
ment thus:  If  the  maker  of  the  plane  lends  it,  he 
says,  instead  of  himself  using  it,  and  the  borrower 
borrows  a  plane,  instead  of  himself  making  one, 
such  an  arrangement  is  simply  due  to  the  fact  that 
both  parties  for  the  moment  happen  to  find  it  con- 
venient. For,  George  observes,  it  is  no  part  of 
Bastiat's  contention  that  the  plane  is  due  to  the 
exertion  of  any  faculties  possessed  by  the  maker 
only.  Either  man  could  make  it,  just  as  either 
man  could  use  it.  Why,  then,  should  A  pay  a 
tribute  to  B  for  the  use  of  something  which,  to- 
morrow if  not  to-day,  he  could  make  for  himself 
without  paying  anything  to  anybody? 

Now  if  Bastiat's  plane  is  to  be  taken  as  signifying 
a  plane  only,  the  criticism  of  George  is  just.  But 
what  George  forgets  is  that,  if  the  plane  means  a 
plane  only — an  implement  which  the  man  could 
make  just  as  well  as  the  lender — interest  on  planes, 
besides  being  morally  indefensible,  would  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  never  be  paid  at  all.  Bastiat's  plane, 
however,  stands  for  a  kind  of  capital,  the  borrowing 
of  which  and  the  paying  of  interest  on  which,  form 
one  of  the  most  constant  features  of  the  modern 
industrial  world;  and  he  evidently  assumes,  even 
if  he  does  not  say  so,  that  for  all  this  borrowing 
and  paying  there  is  some  constant  and  sufficient 
reason.  Now  the  only  reason  can  be — and  George's 
own  criticism  implies  this — that  in  order  to  produce 
the  machine-capital  borrowed  certain  faculties  are 
needed  which  are  not  possessed  by  the  borrowers; 

223 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

and  though  this  may  not  be  true  of  a  simple  hand- 
plane  itself,  it  is  emphatically  true  of  the  elaborate 
modern  machinery  of  which  Bastiat  merely  uses 
his  hand-plane  as  a  symbol.  In  order  to  produce 
such  implements  of  production  as  these,  the  exer- 
tion of  faculties  is  required  which  are  altogether  ex- 
ceptional, such  as  high  scientific  knowledge,  inven- 
tion, and  many  others.  Let  invention — the  most 
obvious  of  these — here  do  duty  for  all,  and  let  us 
consider,  for  example,  the  mechanism  of  a  modern 
cotton-mill,  or  of  a  boot-factory,  or  a  Hoe  printing- 
press,  or  a  plant  for  electric  lighting.  All  these 
would  be  impossible  if  it  had  not  been  for  inventive 
faculties  as  rare  in  their  way  as  are  those  of  a  play- 
wright like  Mr.  Shaw. 

No  one  will  deny  that  when  a  play  like  "  Man  and 
Superman"  first  acquires  a  vogue  which  renders  its 
performance  profitable,  the  royalties  paid  to  the 
author  are  values  which  he  has  himself  created, 
not  indeed  by  his  faculties  used  directly,  but  by 
his  faculties  embodied  in  a  work  which  he  has 
accomplished  once  for  all  in  the  past,  and  which 
has  thenceforward  become  a  secondary  and  indefi- 
nitely enduring  self;  and  if  this  is  true  of  the 
royalties  resulting  from  its  first  profitable  perform- 
ance, it  would  be  equally  true  of  those  resulting 
from  the  last,  even  though  this  should  take  place 
on  the  eve  of  the  Day  of  Judgment.  With  pro- 
ductive machinery  the  case  is  just  the  same.  If 
Mr.  Shaw,  instead  of  writing  "Man  and  Superman," 
had  been  the  sole  inventor  of  the  steam-engine,  and 

224 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISxM 

the  only  man  capable  of  inventing  it,  every  one  will 
admit  that  he  would,  by  this  one  inventive  effort, 
have  personally  co-operated  for  a  time  with  all 
users  of  steam-power,  and  been  part-producer  of 
the  increment  in  which  its  use  resulted.  And  if  this 
would  have  been  true  of  his  invention  when  it  was 
only  two  years  old,  it  would  be  equally  true  now. 
He  would  still  be  co-operating  w4th  the  users  of 
every  steam-engine  in  the  world  to-day,  and  adding 
to  their  products  a  something  which  they  could  not 
have  produced  alone. 

Here,  then,  we  see  that  in  one  respect  at  all  events 
the  two  kinds  of  capital,  which  George  attempts 
to  contrast,  yield  interest  for  a  precisely  similar 
reason.  Both  consist  of  a  productive  power  or 
agency  which  is  external  to  the  borrower  himself; 
and  it  makes  no  difference  to  him  whether  the 
auxiliary  power  borrowed  inheres  in  living  tissue, 
or  in  a  mechanism  of  brass  or  iron. 

But  the  resemblance  between  these  two  forms  of 
capital,  and  the  identity  of  the  reasons  why  both 
of  them  bear  interest,  do  not  end  here.  I  quoted 
in  a  former  chapter  an  observation  of  Mr.  Sidney 
Webb's,  which  he  himself  applies  in  a  very  foolish 
way,  but  which  is  obviously  true  in  itself,  and  in 
the  present  connection  is  pertinent.  Some  men, 
he  admits,  are  incomparably  more  productive  than 
others,  because  they  happen  to  be  born  with  a 
special  kind  of  ability.  But  what  is  this  ability 
itself  ?  It  is  simply  the  result,  he  says,  of  a  process 
which  lies  behind  them — namely,  the  natural  proc- 

225 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

ess  of  animal  and  human  evolution ;  and  its  special 
products  are  like  those  of  exceptionally  fertile  land. 
That  is  to  say,  the  ability  which  produces  modern 
machines  is  in  reality  just  as  much  a  force  of  nature 
as  that  which  makes  live-stock  fertile,  and  brings 
raw  wine  to  maturity.  But  the  same  line  of  argu- 
ment will  carry  us  much  farther  than  this.  As  Dr. 
Beattie  Crozier  has  shown  in  his  work,  The  Wheel 
of  Wealth,  the  part  which  nature  plays  in  productive 
machinery  is  not  confined  to  the  brains  of  the  gifted 
inventors  and  their  colleagues.  It  is  incorporated 
in,  and  identified  with,  the  actual  machines  them- 
selves. The  lever,  the  cam,  the  eccentric,  the 
crank,  the  piston,  the  turbine,  the  boiler  with  the 
vapor  imprisoned  in  it — devices  which  it  has  taxed 
the  brains  of  the  greatest  men  to  elaborate  and  to 
co-ordinate — were  all  latent  in  nature  before  these 
men  made  them  actual;  and  when  once  such  de- 
vices are  actualized  it  is  nature  that  makes  them 
go.  There  is  not  merely  a  transformation  of  so 
much  human  energy  into  the  same  amount  of 
natural  energy;  but  nature  adds  to  the  former  a 
non-human  energy  of  her  own ;  as — to  take  a  good 
illustration  of  Dr.  Crozier' s — obviously  happens  in 
the  case  of  a  charge  of  gunpowder,  which,  "when 
used  for  purposes  of  blasting,  has,"  he  observes, 
"in  itself  a  thousand  times  the  quantity  of  pure 
economic  power  that  is  bought  in  the  work  of  the 
laborers"  who  supply  and  mix  the  ingredients. 
That  is  to  say,  whenever  human  talent  invents  and 
produces  a  machine  which  adds  to  the  productivity 

226 


A   CRITICAL   EXAML\ATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

of  any  one  who  uses  it  with  sufficient  intelligence, 
the  inventor  has  shut  up  in  his  machine  some  part 
of  the  forces  of  nature,  as  though  it  were  an  effreet 
whom  a  magician  has  shut  up  in  a  bottle,  and  whose 
services  he  can  keep  for  himself,  or  hand  over  to 
others.  The  effreets  shut  up  in  machinery  will  not 
work  for  human  beings  at  all,  unless  there  are 
human  magicians  who  manage  thus  to  imprison 
them.  They  therefore  belong  to  the  men  who,  in 
virtue  of  their  special  capacities,  are  alone  capable 
of  the  effort  requisite  to  perform  this  feat;  and  it 
matters  nothing  to  others,  by  whom  the  effreets' 
services  are  borrowed,  whether  the  effort  in  ques- 
tion occupied  a  year  or  a  day,  or  whether  it  took 
place  yesterday  or  fifty  years  ago. 

The  borrowed  effreet  produces  the  same  surplus 
in  either  case ;  and  interest  is  a  part  of  this  surplus 
which  goes,  not  to  the  effreet  himself  (for  this  is 
not  possible),  but  to  his  master,  just  as  a  cab-fare 
is  paid  to  the  cabman  and  not  his  horse. 

Alachine-capital,  then — or  capital  in  its  typical 
modern  form — consists  of  productive  forces  which 
are  usable  by,  and  which  indeed  exist  for,  the 
human  race  at  large,  because,  and  only  because, 
they  have  been  captured  and  imprisoned  in  imple- 
ments by  the  efforts  of  exceptional  men,  whose 
energy  thus  exercised  is  perpetuated,  and  can  be 
lent  to  others;  and  what  these  men  receive  as 
interest  from  those  by  whom  their  energy  is  bor- 
rowed, is  a  something  ultimately  due  to  the  energy 
of  the  lenders  themselves;    nor  is  this  fact  in  any 

227 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

way  altered  by  lapse  of  time.  Thus,  so  far  as  these 
special  men  are  concerned,  the  alleged  difference 
between  earned  income  and  unearned  altogether 
disappears ;  and  if  one  man  lives  in  luxury  for  sixty 
years  on  the  interest  of  an  invention  which  it  took 
him  but  a  month  to  perfect,  while  another  man 
every  day  has  to  toil  for  his  daily  bread,  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two  consists  not  in  the  fact  that 
the  one  man  works  for  his  bread  and  the  other  man 
does  nothing  for  it,  but  in  the  fact  that  the  work 
of  one  produces  more  in  a  day  than  that  of  the 
other  would  do  in  a  hundred  lifetimes. 

Here,  however,  we  shall  be  met  with  two  impor- 
tant objections.  In  the  first  place,  it  will  no  doubt 
have  occurred  to  many  readers  that  throughout 
the  foregoing  discussion  we  have  assumed  that 
the  persons  who  receive  interest  on  machinery  are 
in  all  cases  the  persons  by  whom  the  machinery 
was  invented  and  produced.  To  the  actual  in- 
ventors and  producers  it  may,  indeed,  be  conceded 
that  the  interest  which  they  themselves  receive 
has  been  earned  by  their  own  exertions;  but  no 
such  concession,  it  will  be  said,  can  be  made  to 
these  men's  heirs.  An  Edison  or  a  Bessemer  may 
have  produced  whatever  income  has  come  to  him 
in  his  latest  years  from  the  inventive  efforts  of  his 
earliest;  but  if  such  a  man  has  a  son  to  whom  this 
income  descends  —  a  half-witted  degenerate  who 
squanders  it  on  wine  and  women,  who  will  not  work 
with  his  hands  and  who  cannot  work  with  his  head 
— no  one  can  pretend  that,  in  any  sense  of  the  word, 

228 


A   CRITICAL   EXAxMINATIOiN    OF   SOCIALISM 

a  fool  like  this  produces  any  fraction  of  the  thou- 
sands that  he  consumes.  And  though  all  of  those 
who  live  on  the  interest  of  inherited  capital  are  not 
foolish  nor  vicious,  yet  in  this  respect  they  are  all 
of  them  in  the  same  position.  They  have  not  pro- 
duced their  incomes,  and  so  have  no  moral  right  to 
them. 

In  the  second  place,  the  following  argument,  which 
was  discussed  in  an  earlier  chapter,  will  also  be 
brought  forward,  refurbished  for  the  present  occa- 
sion. Let  us  grant,  it  will  be  said,  that  the  inven- 
tions which  have  enriched  the  world  were  originally 
due  to  the  talents  of  exceptional  men,  and  that 
without  these  exceptional  men  the  world  would 
never  have  possessed  them;  but  when  once  they 
have  been  made,  and  their  powers  seen  in  operation, 
the  human  race  at  large  can,  if  left  to  itself,  take 
over  these  powers  from  the  inventors,  just  as  the 
inventors  took  them  over  from  nature.  Indeed, 
this  constantly  happens.  Any  boy  with  a  turning- 
lathe  can  to-day  make  a  model  steam-engine;  and 
no  one  will  contend  that  such  a  model  was  not  made 
by  himself,  on  the  ground  that  it  coiild  not  have 
been  made  either  by  him  or  by  anybody  unless 
Watt,  with  his  exceptional  genius,  had  invented 
steam  as  a  motor-power.  One  might  as  well  con- 
tend that  a  savage  does  not  really  light  his  own 
fire,  on  the  ground  that  the  art  of  kindling  wood 
was  found  out  by  Prometheus,  and  that  no  one, 
except  for  him,  would  have  had  any  fires  at  all. 
The  truth  is,  it  will  be  said,  that  in  such  cases  as 

i6  229 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

these  the  powers  of  the  exceptional  man,  originally 
confined  to  himself,  are,  when  his  invention  is  once 
in  practical  operation,  naturally  shared  by  his  fel- 
lows, who  can  only  be  restrained  from  using  them 
by  artificial  devices  such  as  patents — these  devices 
being  at  best,  from  a  moral  point  of  view,  devices 
by  which  one  man  who  has  given  a  check  to 
another  man  steals  back  half  the  money  as  soon  as 
the  check  is  cashed. 

Now  both  these  arguments,  so  far  as  they  go,  are 
true ;  but  neither  has  any  bearing  on  the  problem 
which  is  now  before  us.  That  problem  arises — let 
me  observe  once  more — out  of  the  assumption  that, 
as  a  matter  of  justice,  every  man  has  a  right  to  the 
products  of  all  such  forces  as  are  his  own;  whence 
it  follows  that  nobody  has  a  right  to  the  products 
of  any  forces  which  are  not  definitely  in  himself. 
Let  us  take,  then,  the  latter  of  the  above  arguments 
first.  It  would  doubtless  be  absurd  to  contend, 
were  Prometheus  alive  to-day,  that  because  he  in- 
vented the  art  of  striking  fire  from  flints  he  ought 
to  be  paid  a  tribute  by  every  savage  who  boiled  a 
kettle;  for  the  savage  can  strike  a  flint  as  well  as 
Prometheus  himself  could.  But  if  fire  could  be 
kindled  only  by  a  particular  sort  of  match  which 
Prometheus  alone  could  make,  the  fact  that  he  was 
really  the  lighter  of  all  fires  would  be  obvious,  and 
his  claim  to  a  payment  in  respect  of  the  lighting  of 
every  one  of  them  would  be  as  sound  as  the  claim 
of  the  lighter  of  street-lamps  to  his  wages.  If 
" Man  and  Superman"  were  not  a  play,  but  a  hoot, 

230 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

which  Mr.  Shaw  had  invented  in  order  to  call  atten- 
tion to  himself,  and  which  any  street-boy  could 
imitate  with  the  same  results,  it  would  be  idle  for 
Mr.  Shaw  to  claim  a  right  to  royalties  from  the 
street-boys;  but  it  would  be  idle  only  because  it 
would  not  be  possible  to  collect  them.  He  is  able 
to  collect  them  on  his  play  because,  and  only  be- 
cause, his  play  exists  in  a  form  which  is  susceptible 
of  legal  protection.  If  in  justice  he  has  a  right  to 
these,  as  he  no  doubt  has,  he  would,  if  abstract 
justice  were  the  sole  determining  factor,  have  an 
equal  right  to  royalties  on  the  use  of  his  peculiar 
hoot.  He  fails  to  have  any  such  right  because,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  principle  of  abstract  justice  with 
which  we  are  here  concerned — that  every  one  has  a 
right  to  everything  that  he  himself  produces — has,  in 
common  with  all  abstract  moral  principles  whatso- 
ever, no  application  to  cases  in  which,  from  the  nat- 
ure of  things,  it  is  wholly  impossible  to  enforce  it. 

And  the  same  criticism  is  applicable  to  the  other 
argument  before  us,  which  admits  that  a  man  who 
invents  a  productive  machine,  or  who  writes  a 
remunerative  play,  is  so  long  as  he  likes  entitled, 
because  he  is  the  true  producer  of  them,  to  certain 
profits  arising  from  the  use  of  either ;  but  adds  that 
his  rights  to  such  profits  end  with  his  own  life,  and 
lose  all  sanction  in  justice  the  moment  they  are 
transferred  to  an  heir.  In  the  heir's  hands,  it  is 
urged,  they  entirely  change  their  character,  and, 
instead  of  enabling  a  man  to  secure  what  is  hon- 
estly his  own,  become  means  by  which  he  is  enabled 

23^  \ 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMIXATIOX    OF   SOCIALISM 

to  steal  what  morally  belongs  to  others.  Now,  if 
it  is  seriously  contended  that  nobody  has  a  right 
to  anything  which  at  some  time  or  other  he  has  not 
personally  produced,  the  interest  on  machinery,  as 
soon  as  the  inventor  dies,  not  only  ought  not  to 
belong  to  the  inventor's  heir,  but  it  ought  not  to 
belong  to  anybody;  for  if  this  interest  is  not  pro- 
duced by  the  heir,  it  is  certainly  not  produced  by 
any  of  the  heir's  contemporaries.  A  contention 
like  this  is  absurd;  there  must  therefore  be  some- 
thing amiss  with  the  premises  which  lead  up  to  it. 
Socialists  who  admit  that  an  inventor  during  his 
lifetime  has  a  right  to  the  interest  resulting  from 
the  use  of  his  own  inventions,  endeavor  to  solve  the 
difficulty  by  maintaining  that  after  his  death  both 
invention  and  interest  should  pass  into  the  hands 
of  the  state ;  but  this  doctrine,  on  whatever  grounds 
it  may  be  defended,  cannot  be  defended  as  based 
on  the  principle  now  in  question,  that  the  sole  valid 
title  to  possession  is  personal  production.  It  must, 
if  it  is  based  on  any  abstract  moral  principle  at  all, 
be  based  on  one  of  a  much  more  general  kind,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  ultimate  standard  of  justice 
is  not  the  deeds  of  the  individual,  but  the  general 
welfare  of  society.  Here  it  is  true  that  the  appeal 
is  still  to  abstract  justice,  but  it  is  not  an  appeal 
to  abstract  justice  only.  In  order  to  condemn 
interest  on  any  such  ground  as  this,  it  is  necessary 
to  assume  or  prove  that  to  make  interest  illegal, 
or  to  confiscate  it  by  taxation  when  it  arises,  or  by 
any  other  means  to  render  its  enjoyment  impossible, 

232 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATIOxN   OF    SOCIALISM 

will  as  a  matter  of  fact  have  the  result  desired — 
namely,  a  permanent  rise  in  the  general  level  of 
prosperity.  It  is  only  by  means  of  an  assumption 
of  this  purely  practical  kind  that  the  abstract  moral 
principle  can  be  applied  to  the  case  at  all ;  and  thus 
let  us  approach  the  problem  from  whatever  side  we 
will,  we  are  brought  from  the  region  of  theory  down 
into  that  of  practice,  not,  indeed,  by  an  abrupt  leap, 
but  by  a  gradual  and  necessary  transition.  We  are 
not  abandoning  our  considerations  of  what,  in  ab- 
stract justice,  ought  to  be :  but  we  are  compelled  to  in- 
terpret what  ought  to  be  by  considerations  of  what, 
as  the  result  of  such  and  such  arrangements,  will  be. 
To  sum  up,  then,  the  conclusions  which  we  have 
reached  thus  far — if  we  confine  our  attention  to 
those  recipients  of  interest  who  have  themselves 
produced  the  capital  from  which  the  interest  is 
derived,  and  compare  such  incomes  with  those 
which  renew  themselves  only  as  the  result  of  con- 
tinued effort,  it  is  absolutely  impossible,  on  any 
general  theory  of  justice,  to  sanction  the  latter  as 
earned,  and  condemn  the  former  as  unearned.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  turn  to  those  whose  incomes 
consist  of  interest  on  capital  produced  by,  and 
inherited  from,  their  fathers,  and  if  we  argue  that 
here  at  all  events  we  come  to  a  class  of  interest  on 
which  its  living  recipients  can  have  no  justifiable 
claim,  since  we  start  with  admitting  that  it  originates 
in  the  efforts  of  the  dead,  our  argument,  though 
plausible  in  its  premises,  is  stultified  by  its  logical 
consequence;    since  the  same  principle  on   which 

233 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

we  are  urged  as  a  sacred  duty  to  take  the  income 
in  question  away  from  its  present  possessors,  would 
forbid  our  allowing  it  to  pass  into  the  possession  of 
anybody  else.  In  short,  if  continued  daily  labor, 
or  else  the  exercise  of  invention,  or  some  other  form 
of  ability,  at  some  period  of  their  lives  by  persons 
actually  living,  constitutes  in  justice  the  sole  right 
to  possession,  the  human  race  as  a  whole  has  no 
right  to  profit  by  any  productive  effort  on  the  part 
of  past  generations;  but  each  generation  ought,  so 
far  as  is  practicable,  to  start  afresh  in  the  position 
of  naked  savages.  The  fact  that  nobody  would 
maintain  a  fantastic  proposition  like  this  is  suffi- 
cient to  show  that,  on  the  tacit  admission  of  every- 
body, it  is  impossible  to  attack  interest  by  insisting 
on  any  abstract  distinction  between  incomes  that 
are  earned  and  unearned,  and  treating  the  latter  as 
felonious,  while  holding  the  former  sacred.  It  is 
equally  true,  however,  that  on  such  grounds  alone 
it  is  no  less  impossible  to  defend  interest  than  to 
attack  it;  and  here  we  arrive  at  what  is  the  real 
truth  of  the  matter — namely,  that  in  cases  like  the 
present  the  principles  of  ideal  justice  do  not,  indeed, 
give  us  false  guidance,  but  give  us  no  guidance  at 
all,  unless  we  take  them  in  connection  with  the 
concrete  facts  of  society,  and  estimate  social  ar- 
rangements as  being  either  right  or  wrong  by 
reference  to  the  practical  consequences  which  do, 
or  which  would  result  from  them. 

The  practical  aspects  of  the  question  we   will 
discuss  in  the  following  chapter. 

234 


CHAPTER   XIV 

THE    SOCIALISTIC    ATTACK    ON    INTEREST    AND    THE 
NATURE    OF    ITS    ERROR 

The  practical  outcome  of  the  moral  attack  on  interest  is 
logically  an  attack  on  bequest. 

Modem  socialism  would  logically  allow  a  man  to  inherit 
accumulations,  and  to  spend  the  principal,  but  not  to  receive 
interest  on  his  money  as  an  investment. 

What  would  be  the  result  if  all  who  inherited  capital  spent 
it  as  income,  instead  of  living  on  the  interest  of  it  ? 

Two  typical  illustrations  of  these  ways  of  treating  capital. 

The  ultimate  difference  between  the  two  results. 

What  the  treatment  of  capital  as  income  would  mean,  if  the 
practice  were  made  luiiversal.  It  would  mean  the  gradual 
loss  of  all  the  added  productive  forces  with  which  individual 
genius  has  enriched  the  world. 

Practical  condemnation  of  proposed  attack  on  interest. 

Another  aspect  of  the  matter. 

Those  who  attack  interest,  as  distinct  from  other  kinds  of 
money-reward,  admit  that  the  possession  of  wealth  is  neces- 
sary as  a  stimulus  to  production. 

But  the  possession  of  wealth  is  desired  mainly  for  its  social 
results  far  more  than  for  its  purely  individual  results. 

Interest  as  connected  with  the  sustentation  of  a  certain 
mode  of  social  life. 

Further  consideration  of  the  manner  in  which  those  who 
attack  interest  ignore  the  element  of  time,  and  contemplate  the 
present  moment  only. 

The  economic  functions  of  a  class  which  is  not,  at  a  given 
moment,   economically  productive. 

Systematic  failure  of  those  who  attack  interest  to  consider 
society  as  a  whole,  continually  emerging  from  the  past,  and 

235 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

dependent  for  its  various  energies  on   the   prospects  of  the 
future. 

Consequent  futiHty  of  the  general  attack  on  interest,  though 
interest  in  certain  cases  may  be  justly  subjected  to  special 
but  not  exaggerated  burdens. 

If  we  reconsider  what  we  have  s5en  in  the  last 
chapter,  we  shall  realize  that  the  moral  or  theoreti- 
cal attack  on  interest,  as  income  which  is  unjustifi- 
able because  it  has  not  been  personally  earned,  is, 
when  tested  by  the  logic  of  those  who  make  it,  an 
attack,  not  on  interest  itself,  but  on  bequest;  and 
that  such  is  the  case  will  become  even  more  evident 
when  we  see  what  the  theory  comes  to,  as  trans- 
lated into  a  practical  programme. 

The  majority  of  those  who  attack  interest  to-day 
no  matter  whether  in  other  respects  they  are  advo- 
cates of  socialism  or  opponents  of  it,  agree  in  declar- 
ing that  what  a  man  has  personally  produced  he 
has  a  perfect  right  to  enjoy  and  spend  as  he  pleases. 
The  only  right  they  deny  to  him  is  the  right  to  any 
further  products  which,  before  the  capital  has  been 
spent  by  him  may  result  from  the  productive  use 
of  it.  Now  the  practical  object  with  which  this 
restriction  is  advocated  is  to  render  impossible, 
not  accumulations  of  wealth  (for  these  are  recog- 
nized as  legitimate  when  the  reward  of  personal 
talent) ,  but  merely  their  perpetuation  in  the  hands 
of  others  who  are  economically  idle.  So  far,  there- 
fore, as  this  practical  object  is  concerned,  it  would 
matter  little  whether  the  man  by  whom  the  accum- 
ulation was  made  were  allowed  to  receive  interest 

236 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

on  it  during  his  own  lifetime  or  no,  provided  that 
this  right  to  interest  were  not  transmissible  to  his 
heir;  or  even  whether  he  were  allowed  or  were  not 
allowed  to  leave  anything  to  an  heir  at  all.  For 
the  heir  at  best  would  merely  receive  a  sum  which, 
since  it  could  not  be  used  by  him  so  as  to  bring 
about  its  own  renewal,  would  be  bound  soon  to 
exhaust  itself;  and  the  general  effect  of  permitting 
bequests  of  this  sterilized  kind  would  differ  from 
the  effect  of  prohibiting  bequests  altogether,  not 
because  it  would  tend  to  render  accumulated  fort- 
unes peniianent,  but  only  because  it  would  pro- 
tract for  a  decade  or  two  the  process  of  their  in- 
evitable dissipation. 

We  may,  therefore,  say  that,  for  the  purposes  of 
the  present  discussion,  the  modem  attack  on  in- 
terest practically  translates  itself  into  this — namely, 
the  advocacy  of  a  scheme  which,  as  regards  the 
actual  producers  of  capital,  leaves  their  existing 
rights  both  to  principal  and  interest  untouched, 
and  would  not  even  extinguish  altogether  their 
existing  powers  of  bequest,  but  would  limit  the 
exercise  of  these  to  the  principal  sum  only,^  and  pro- 
hibit the  transmission  to  any  private  person  of  any 

*  Mr.  G.  Wilshire,  in  his  detailed  criticism  of  my  American 
speeches,  states  twice  over  the  modem  socialistic  doctrine  as 
to  this  point.  The  maker  or  inheriter  of  capital,  he  says, 
could,  under  socialism,  "buy  all  the  automobiles  he  wanted, 
all  the  diamonds,  all  the  champagne;  or  he  could  build  a  palace. 
In  other  words,  he  could  spend  his  income  in  consumable  goods, 
but  he  could  not  invest  either  in  productive  machinery  or  in 
land." 

237 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

right  whatever  to  the  usufruct  of  its  productive 
employment. 

Here,  then,  at  last,  we  have  something  definite 
to  discuss — a  single  proposed  alteration  in  certain 
existing  arrangements;  and  by  comparing  the 
situation  which  actually  exists  to-day  with  that 
which  the  proposed  alteration,  if  carried  into  effect, 
would  produce,  we  shall  see  whether  the  alteration 
is  workable  and  practically  defensible  or  no.  Let 
us  begin  w4th  the  situation  w^hich  actually  exists 
to-day,  confining  ourselves  to  those  features  of  it 
which  are  vital  to  the  present  issue. 

Let  us  take  two  men  of  practically  contrasted 
types,  each  of  whom  has  inherited  a  capital  of  two 
hundred  thousand  dollars.  The  ultimate  object 
of  each  is,  in  one  way  or  another,  to  make  his  capi- 
tal provide  him  with  the  life  that  he  most  desires; 
but  the  first  man  is  thoughtful,  far-seeing,  and 
shrewd,  while  the  second  cares  for  nothing  but  the 
gayety  and  pleasure  of  the  moment ;  and  they  deal 
with  their  capitals  in  accordance  with  their  re- 
spective characters.  The  first  meets,  let  us  say, 
with  the  inventor  of  an  agricultural  machine,  which 
will,  if  successfully  manufactured,  double  the  wheat 
crop  of  every  acre  to  the  cultivation  of  which  it  is 
applied.  He  places  his  capital,  as  a  loan,  in  this 
inventor's  hands.  The  machine  is  constructed,  and 
used  with  the  results  desired ;  and  the  man  who  has 
lent  the  capital  receives  each  year  a  proportion  of 
the  new  loaves  which  are  due  to  the  machine's 
efficiency,  and  would  not  have  existed  otherwise. 

238 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

The  second  man  invests  his  fortune  in  any  kind  of 
security  which  has  the  advantage  of  being  turned 
easily  into  cash,  and  draws  out  month  by  month 
so  many  thousand  doUars,  without  reference  to 
anything  but  the  pleasures  he  desires  to  purchase; 
and  by  the  end  of  a  few  years  both  his  capital  and 
his  income  have  disappeared. 

Now  any  one  judging  these  men  by  the  current 
standards  of  common-sense  would,  while  praising 
the  first  as  a  model  of  moral  prudence,  condemn 
the  second  as  a  fool  who  had  brought  his  ruin  upon 
himself,  and  curtly  dismiss  him,  if  a  bachelor,  as 
being  nobody's  enemy  but  his  own.  But  before  we 
indorse  either  of  these  judgments  as  adequate,  let 
us  consider  more  minutely  what  in  each  case  has 
been  really  done. 

Let  us  start,  then,  with  noting  this.  Whether  a 
man  invests  his  capital  in  any  productive  machine 
and  then  lives  on  the  interest,  or  else  spends  it  as 
income  on  his  own  personal  pleasures,  he  is  doing 
in  one  respect  precisely  the  same  thing.  He  is 
giving  something  to  other  men  in  order  that  they, 
in  return,  may  make  certain  efforts  for  his  benefit, 
of  a  kind  which  he  himself  prescribes.  This  is 
obviously  true  when,  spending  his  capital  as  income, 
what  he  pays  for  is  personal  service,  such  as  that 
of  a  butler  or  footman  who  polishes  his  silver  plate. 
It  is  equally  true  when  he  pays  for  the  plate  itself. 
He  is  paying  the  silversmith  so  to  exert  his  muscles 
that  an  ounce  or  a  pound  of  silver  may  be  wrought 
into  a  specific  fonn.     If  he  pays  a  toy-maker  to 

239 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

make  him  a  dancing-doll,  he  is  virtually  paying  him 
to  dance  in  his  own  person.  He  is  paying  him  to  go 
through  a  series  of  prescribed  muscular  movements. 
Similarly  when  he  pays  a  large  number  of  men  to 
construct  a  productive  machine  instead  of  a  doll  or 
an  ornament,  he  is  paying  for  the  muscular  move- 
ments from  which  the  machine  results.  Here  we 
come  back  to  one  of  the  main  economic  truths  to  the 
elucidation  of  which  our  earlier  chapters  were  de- 
voted. It  was  there  pointed  out  that  the  machinery 
of  the  modern  world  owes  its  existence  to  the  fact 
that  men  of  exceptional  talent,  by  possessing  the 
control  of  goods  which  a  number  of  other  men  re- 
quire, are  able  in  return  for  the  goods  to  make  these 
other  men  exert  themselves  in  a  variety  of  minutely 
prescribed  and  elaborately  co-ordinated  ways.  In 
short,  all  spending  is,  on  the  part  of  those  who 
spend,  a  determination  of  the  efforts  of  others  in 
such  ways  as  the  spender  pleases.  Further,  as  was 
pointed  out  in  an  earlier  chapter  also,  the  only 
goods  thus  generally  exchangeable  for  effort  are 
those  common  necessaries  of  existence  for  which 
most  men  must  always  work,  and  which  may  here 
be  represented  by  food,  the  first  and  the  most  im- 
portant of  them.  Hence,  whenever  the  question 
arises  of  how  any  given  capital  shall  be  treated — of 
whether  it  shall  be  invested,  or  else  spent  as  income 
— this  capital  must  be  regarded  as  existing  in  the 
indeterminate  form  of  food,  which  is  equally  capa- 
ble of  being  treated  in  one  way  or  the  other.  And 
any  man's  capital  represents  for  him,  according  to 

240 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

its  amount,  the  power  of  feeding,  and  so  determin- 
ing the  actions  of  a  definite  number  of  other  men 
for  some  definite  period.  Since,  therefore,  the  two 
capitaHsts  whose  conduct  we  have  been  taking  as 
an  illustration  have  been  supposed  by  us  to  possess 
two  hundred  thousand  dollars  apiece,  we  shall  give 
precision  to  the  situation  if  we  say  that  each,  at 
starting,  has  the  power  of  feeding,  and  so  determin- 
ing the  actions  of,  two  hundred  other  men  for  a 
period  of  two  years. 

So  much,  then,  being  settled,  let  us  consider  these 
further  facts.  Both  the  capitalists,  as  we  set  out 
with  observing,  have  in  employing  their  capital  the 
same  ultimate  object  —  namely,  that  of  securing 
through  the  purchased  efforts  of  others  a  continuous 
supply  of  things  which  will  render  their  lives  agree- 
able. And  now  in  connection  with  this  fact  let  us 
go  back  to  another,  which  has  also  been  pointed 
out  before,  that  all  efforts,  the  sole  object  of  which 
is  to  please  from  moment  to  moment  the  man  who 
directs  and  pays  for  them,  are,  whether  embodied 
in  the  form  of  commodities  or  no,  really  reducible 
to  some  kind  of  personal  service.  If  a  toy-maker, 
in  return  for  food,  makes  a  dancing-doll  for  another 
man,  he  might  just  as  well  have  pirouetted  for  so 
many  hours  himself ;  and  if  the  purchaser  would  be 
more  amused  by  a  man's  antics  than  by  a  puppet's, 
this  is  precisely  what  the  toy-maker  would  have 
been  set  to  do.  In  short,  if  we  consider  only  the 
economic  side  of  the  matter,  without  reference  to 
the  moral,   whenever  a  man  spends  anything  on 

241 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

his  own  personal  pleasure,  he  is  virtually  paying 
some  other  man,  or  a  number  of  other  men  to  dance 
for  him.  What,  therefore,  both  our  capitalists  de- 
sire as  their  ultimate  object,  is  to  keep  as  many  men 
as  they  are  able  to  provide  with  food  always  danc- 
ing for  their  pleasure,  or  in  readiness  to  do  so  when 
wanted ;  but,  in  setting  themselves,  to  achieve  this 
object  in  their  two  different  ways,  what  happens  is 
as  follows: 

Both  use  their  capital  by  dispensing  it  in  the 
form  of  daily  rations  to  two  hundred  other  men, 
on  condition  that  these  men  do  something ;  but  the 
first  feeds  the  other  men,  not  on  condition  that 
they  dance  for  him,  or  do  anything  that  ministers 
to  his  own  immediate  pleasure,  but  on  condition 
that  they  construct  a  machine  which  will  enable, 
as  soon  as  it  is  finished,  a  given  amount  of  human 
effort  to  double  the  amount  of  food  which  such 
effort  would  have  produced  otherwise.  Thus,  by 
the  end  of  two  years — the  time  which  we  suppose  to 
be  required  for  the  machine's  completion — though 
the  original  food-supply  of  the  capitalist  will  all  have 
been  eaten  up  and  disappeared,  its  place  will  have 
been  taken  by  a  machine  which  will  enable  forever 
afterwards  one -half  of  the  two  hundred  men  to 
produce  food  for  the  whole.  A  hundred  men, 
therefore,  are  left  for  whom  food  can  be  permanent- 
ly provided,  without  any  effort  to  produce  it  being 
made  by  these  men  themselves;  and  since  of  this 
annual  surplus  a  part — let  us  call  it  half — will  be 
taken  as  interest  on  the  machine  by  the  man  with 

242 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

whose  capital  it  was  constructed,  he  will  now  have 
the  means  of  making  fifty  men  dance  for  his  pleas- 
ure in  perpetuity ;  for  as  often  as  they  have  eaten 
up  one  supply  of  food,  this,  through  the  agency  of 
the  machine,  will  have  been  replaced  by  another. 

Our  second  capitalist,  meanwhile,  who  deals 
with  his  capital  as  income,  starts  with  setting  the 
dancers  to  dance  for  his  behoof  at  once;  and  he 
keeps  the  whole  two  hundred  dancing  and  doing 
nothing  else,  so  long  as  he  has  food  w^ith  which  to 
feed  them.  This  life  is  charming  so  long  as  it  lasts, 
but  in  two  years'  time  it  abruptly  comes  to  an  end. 
The  capitalist's  cupboard  is  bare.  He  has  no  means 
of  refilling  it.  The  dancers  will  dance  no  more  for 
him,  for  he  cannot  keep  them  alive ;  and  the  efforts 
for  two  years  of  two  hundred  men,  as  directed  by 
a  man  who  treats  his  capital  as  income,  will  now 
have  resulted  in  nothing  but  the  destruction  of  that 
capital  itself,  and  a  memory  of  muscular  move- 
ments which,  so  far  as  the  future  is  concerned, 
might  just  as  well  have  been  those  of  monkeys 
before  the  deluge. 

Now  if  w^e  take  the  careers  of  our  two  capitalists 
as  standing  for  the  careers  of  two  individuals  only, 
and  estimate  them  only  as  related  to  these  men 
themselves,  we  might  content  ourselves  with  in- 
dorsing the  judgment  which  conventional  critics 
would  pass  on  them,  and  say  of  the  one  that  he 
had  acted  as  his  own  best  friend,  and  dismiss  the 
other  as  nobody's  enemy  but  his  own.  But  we  are, 
in  our  present  inquiry,  only  concerned  with  individ- 

243 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

uab  as  illustrating  kinds  of  conduct  which  are,  or 
which  might  be,  general;  and  the  effects  of  their 
conduct,  which  we  here  desire  to  estimate,  are  its 
effects  of  it,  not  on  themselves,  but  on  society 
taken  as  a  whole.  If  we  look  at  the  matter  in  this 
comprehensive  way,  we  shall  find  that  the  facile 
judgments  to  which  we  have  just  alluded  leave 
the  deeper  elements  of  our  problem  altogether  un- 
touched. 

The  difference  between  the  ultimate  results  of 
the  two  ways  of  treating  capital  will,  to  the  con- 
ventional critic,  seem  to  have  been  sufficiently  ex- 
plained by  saying  that  the  energy  stored  up  in  a 
given  accumulation  of  food  reappears  when  em- 
ployed in  one  way,  in  the  efficiency  of  a  permanent 
machine;  and  is,  when  employed  in  the  other,  so 
far  as  human  purposes  are  concerned,  as  completely 
lost  as  it  would  have  been  had  it  never  existed. 
But  if  we  reconsider  a  fact  which  was  dwelt  upon 
in  our  last  chapter,  we  shall  see  that  the  difference 
is  really  much  greater  than  this. 

When  the  potential  energy  residing  in  so  much 
food  has  been  converted  into  the  energy  of  so  much 
human  labor,  and  when  this  is  so  directed  that  a 
productive  machine  results  from  it,  there  is  in  the 
machine,  as  Dr.  Crozier  puts  it,  an  indefinitely 
larger  amount  of  "pure  economic  power"  than  that 
which  has  been  expended  in  the  work  of  the  labor- 
ers' muscles.  While  the  energy  of  the  laborers  has 
merely  resulted  in  a  bottle,  or  a  cage,  we  may  say, 
of  sufficient  strength,  the  genius  of  the  man  who 

244 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMLNATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

directed  them  has  captured  and  imprisoned  an 
elemental  slave  in  it,  who,  so  long  as  the  cage  con- 
fines him,  will  supplement  the  efforts  of  human 
muscle  with  his  own.  But  when  the  energy  latent 
in  food  is  converted  into  such  efforts  as  dancing, 
the  result  produced  is  the  equivalent  of  the  human 
effort  only.  Thus  in  the  modem  world  of  scientific 
enterprise  and  invention,  to  invest  capital  and  then 
live  on  the  interest  of  it,  means  to  press  into  the 
service  of  mankind  an  indefinite  number  of  non- 
human  auxiliaries,  and  year  by  year  to  live  on  a 
part  of  the  products  which  these  deathless  captives 
are'  never  tired  of  producing.  To  spend  capital  as 
income  on  securing  immediate  pleasures  means 
either  to  forego  the  chance  of  adding  any  new 
auxiliaries  to  those  that  we  possess  already,  or 
else  to  let  those  who  are  at  our  service  already 
one  after  one  escape  us — or,  in  other  words,  to 
make  the  productive  force  now  at  the  disposal  of 
any  prosperous  modem  country  decline  towards 
that  zero  of  efficiency  from  which  industrial  prog- 
ress starts,  and  which  marks  off  helpless  savagery 
from  the  first  beginnings  of  civilization. 

It  is  no  doubt  inconceivable,  in  the  case  of  any 
modern  nation,  that  a  climax  of  the  kind  just 
indicated  could  ever  reach  its  completion.  If  all 
the  capitalists,  for  example,  of  Great  Britain  or 
America,  were  suddenly  determined  to  live  on  their 
capital  itself,  they  could  do  so  only  by  continuing 
for  a  considerable  time  to  employ  a  great  deal  of  it 
precisely  as  it  is  employed  at  present.     Indeed,  so 

17  245 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

long  as  they  continued  to  demand  the  luxuries 
which  machines  produce,  it  might  seem  that  it  was 
hardly  possible  for  them  to  get  rid  of  their  capital 
at  all.  But  what  would  really  happen  may  be  brief- 
ly explained  thus: 

If  we  take  the  case  of  any  modern  country,  the 
amount  of  its  income  at  any  given  time  depends  for 
its  sustentation  on  machines  already  in  existence; 
and  its  increase  is  dependent  on  the  gradual  super- 
session of  these  by  new  ones  yet  more  efficient. 
But  the  efficiency  of  the  former  would  soon  begin 
to  decrease,  and  would  ultimately  disappear  alto- 
gether, unless  they  were  constantly  repaired  and 
their  lost  substance  was  renewed;  while  the  latter 
would  never  exist  unless  there  were  men  to  make 
them.  Hence,  under  modem  conditions,  in  any 
prosperous  and  progressive  country,  a  large  por- 
tion of  what  is  called  the  manufacturing  class  is 
always  engaged,  not  in  producing  articles  of  con- 
sumption, comfort,  or  luxury,  but  in  repairing  and 
renewing  the  machines  by  which  such  articles  are 
at  present  multiplied,  or  else  in  constructing  new 
machines  which  shall  supplement  or  replace  the  old. 
Thus,  in  Great  Britain  towards  the  close  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  these  makers  and  repairers  of 
machinery  were,  with  the  exception  of  coal-miners, 
the  industrial  body  whose  proportional  increase 
was  greatest.  In  the  modern  world  the  spending 
of  capital  as  incomxC  is  a  process  which,  in  propor- 
tion as  it  became  general,  would  accomplish  itself 
by  affecting  the  position  of  men  like  these.     It 

246 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

would  consist  of  a  withdrawal  of  men  who  are  at 
present  occupied  in  maintaining  existing  machines, 
or  else  in  constructing  new  ones,  from  their  anvils, 
hammers,  files,  lathes,  and  furnaces,  and  making 
them  dance  instead.  This  withdrawal  would,  in 
proportion  as  it  became  general,  render  the  con- 
struction of  new  machines  impossible,  and  would 
leave  the  efficiency  of  those  now  in  use  to  exhaust 
itself. 

That  such  is  the  case  is  illustrated  on  a  small 
scale  by  the  conduct  of  individuals  who  live  on 
their  capital  now.  If  a  farmer,  whose  capital  con- 
sists largely  of  an  agricultural  plant,  desires  to  spend 
more  than  the  proceeds  of  his  farm  are  worth,  he 
virtually  takes  the  men  who  have  been  mending 
his  barns  and  reapers,  and  sets  them  to  build  a 
buggy  which  will  take  him  to  the  neighboring  races. 
The  varnish  on  the  buggy  is  bought  with  the  rust 
on  the  reaper's  blades;  the  smart,  weather-proof 
apron  with  the  barn's  unmended  roof.  If  the  man- 
aging body  of  a  railroad  pays  a  higher  dividend 
to  the  share-holders  than  can  be  got  out  of  its  net 
earnings,  the  results  are  presently  seen  in  cars  that 
are  growing  dirty,  in  engines  that  break  down,  in 
rotten  sleepers,  and  in  trains  that  run  off  the  track. 
The  men  who  were  once  fed  out  of  a  certain  portion 
of  the  traffic  receipts,  to  keep  these  things  in  repair, 
are  now  fed  to  dance  for  the  share-holders,  thus  sup- 
plying them  with  spurious  dividends.  A  farm  or 
a  railroad  which  was  managed  on  these  principles 
would  ultimately  cease  to  produce  or  to  do  anything 

247 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

for  anybody;  and  if  all  modern  capital  were  man- 
aged in  a  similar  way,  all  the  multiplied  luxuries 
distinctive  of  modern  civilization  would  one  by  one 
disappear  like  crops  which  were  left  to  rot  for  lack 
of  machines  to  reap  them  with,  and  train  services 
which  had  ceased  because  the  engines  were  all 
burned  out. 

That  such  a  climax  should  ever,  in  any  modern 
country,  complete  itself  cannot,  let  me  say  once 
more,  be  apprehended  as  a  practical  possibility;  but 
it  is  practically  impossible  only  because  the  earlier 
stages  of  the  approach  to  it  would  lead  to  a  situation 
that  was  intolerable  long  before  it  ceased  to  be  irrep- 
arable. And  here  we  reach  the  point  to  which  the 
foregoing  examination  has  been  leading  us.  It  is 
precisely  this  course  of  conduct,  the  end  of  which 
would  be  general  ruin,  that  any  attack  on  interest, 
by  means  of  special  taxation  or  otherwise,  would, 
so  long  as  it  lasted,  stimulate  and  render  inevitable. 
Let  me  point  out — though  it  ought  in  a  general  way 
to  be  self-evident — precisely  how  this  is. 

We  start  with  assuming — for,  as  we  have  seen 
already,  so  much  is  conceded  by  those  who  attack 
interest  to-day — that  the  owners  of  capital,  however 
their  rights  may  be  restricted,  still  have  rights  to 
it  of  some  kind.  But  a  man's  rights  to  his  capital 
will  not  be  rights  at  all  unless  they  empower  him 
to  use  it  in  one  way  or  another  as  a  means  of  min- 
istering to  his  own  personal  desires;  and  it  is 
possible  for  him  so  to  use  it  in  one  or  other  of  two 
ways  only — either  by  keeping  it  in  the  form  of  some 

248 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

productive  machine  or  plant,  and  living  on  a  part 
of  the  values  which  this  produces,  or  by  trenching 
on  the  substance  of  the  machine  or  the  plant  itself 
in  the  manner,  and  with  the  results,  which  have 
just  been  explained  and  analyzed.  If,  therefore, 
capitalists  are  to  be  virtually  deprived  of  their 
interest,  either  by  means  of  a  special  tax  on  "un- 
earned incomes  "  or  otherwise,  but  are  yet  permitted 
to  enjoy  their  capital  somehow,  no  course  is  open 
to  them  but  to  employ  for  their  private  pleasures 
the  men  by  whom  this  capital,  in  such  forms  as 
machines  or  railroads  is  at  present  maintained, 
renewed,  and  kept  from  lapsing  into  a  state  in 
which  it  would  be  unable  to  do  or  to  produce  any- 
thing. And  if  any  one  still  thinks  that,  by  such  a 
course  of  conduct,  if  ever  it  became  general,  as  it 
would  do  under  these  conditions,  the  owners  of 
capital  would  be  injuring  themselves  alone,  he  need 
only  reflect  a  little  longer  on  one  of  our  suggested 
illustrations,  and  ask  himself  whether  the  gradual 
deterioration  of  railroads  would  have  no  effect  on 
the  world  beyond  that  of  impoverishing  the  share- 
holders. It  would  obviously  affect  the  many  as 
much  as  it  affected  the  few,  and  the  kind  of  catas- 
trophe that  would  result  from  the  deterioration  of 
railroads  is  typical  of  that  which  would  result  from 
the  deterioration  of  capital  generally. 

It  would,  then,  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  those 
who  attack  interest,  and  propose  to  transfer  it  from 
its  present  recipients  to  the  state,  to  elucidate,  as 
has  here  been  done,  the  two  following  points :  firstly, 

249 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

that  to  interest  as  a  means  of  enjoying  wealth — the 
right  to  such  enjoyment  not  being  here  disputed — 
the  only  alternative  is  a  system  which  would  thus 
prove  fatal  to  everybody;  and,  further,  that,  con- 
versely, the  enjoyment  of  wealth  through  interest 
not  only  possesses  this  negative  advantage,  but  is 
actively  implicated  in,  and  is  the  natural  corollary 
of,  that  progressive  accumulation  of  force  in  the 
form  of  productive  machinery  to  which  all  the 
augmented  wealth  of  the  modern  world  is  due.  By 
the  identification  of  the  enjoyment  of  capital  with 
the  enjoyment  of  some  portion  of  the  products  of 
it,  the  good  of  the  individual  capitalist  is  identified 
with  the  good  of  the  community;  for  it  will,  in 
that  case,  be  the  object  of  all  capitalists  to  raise 
the  productivity  of  all  capital  to  a  maximum; 
while  a  system  which  would  compel  the  possessor, 
if  he  is  to  enjoy  his  capital  at  all,  to  do  so  by  di- 
minishing its  substance  and  allowing  its  powers  to 
dwindle,  would  identify  the  only  advantage  he  could 
possibly  get  for  himself  with  the  impoverishment  of 
everybody  else,  and  ultimately  of  himself  also. 

But  the  crucial  facts  of  the  case  have  not  been 
exhausted  yet.  There  are  few  phenomena  of  any 
complex  society  which  are  not  traceable  to  more 
causes  than  one,  or  at  least  to  one  cause  which 
presents  itself  under  different  aspects.  Such  is 
the  case  with  interest.  Its  origin,  its  functions, 
and  its  justification,  in  the  modern  world,  must  be 
considered  under  an  aspect,  at  which  hitherto  we 
have  only  glanced. 

250 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

Throughout  the  present  discussion  we  have  been 
assuming  that  the  questions  at  issue  turn  ulti- 
mately on  the  character  of  human  motive.  On 
both  sides  it  has  been  assumed  that  men  of  excep- 
tional powers  will  not  produce  exceptional  amounts 
of  wealth,  unless  they  are  allowed  the  right  of 
enjoying  some  substantial  proportion  of  it.  This 
is  a  psychological  truth  which,  together  with  its 
social  consequences,  has  been  dealt  with  elaborately 
in  two  of  our  earlier  chapters.  It  was  there  shown 
that  the  production  of  exceptional  wealth  by  those 
men  whose  peculiar  powers  alone  enable  them  to 
produce  it,  involves  efforts  on  their  part  which, 
unlike  labor,  cannot  be  exacted  of  them  by  any 
outside  compulsion,  but  can  only  be  educed  by 
the  prospect  of  a  secured  reward;  and  that  this 
reward  consists,  as  has  just  been  said,  of  the  enjoy- 
ment of  a  part  of  the  product  proportionate  to  the 
magnitude  of  the  whole;  but  what  the  proportion 
should  be,  and  in  what  manner  it  should  be  enjoyed, 
were  questions  which  were  then  passed  over.  They 
were  passed  over  in  order  that  they  might  be  dis- 
cussed separately.  It  was  pointed  out,  however, 
that  the  reward,  in  order  to  be  operative,  must  be 
such  as  will  be  felt  to  be  sufficient  by  these  men 
themselves,  and  that  its  precise  amount  and  quality 
can  be  detennined  by  them  alone:  just  as,  if  what 
w^e  desire  is  to  coax  an  invalid  to  eat,  we  can  coax 
him  only  with  food  which  he  himself  finds  appe- 
tizing. Let  us  now  take  these  questions  up  again, 
and  examine  them  more  minutely,  and  we  shall 

251 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

find  that  interest  is  justified  from  a  practical  point 
of  view  by  the  fact  that  the  enjoyment  of  capital 
by  this  particular  means,  is  not  only  the  sole  man- 
ner of  enjoying  it  which  is  consistent  with  the 
general  welfare,  but  also  constitutes  the  advantage 
w^hich,  in  the  eyes  of  most  great  producers,  gives  to 
capital  the  larger  part  of  its  value,  and  renders  the 
desire  of  producing  it  efficient  as  a  social  motive. 

The  reasons  why  the  right  to  interest  forms,  in 
the  eyes  of  the  active  producers  of  capital,  the  main 
object  of  their  activity  are  to  be  found,  firstly,  in 
the  facts  of  family  affection,  and,  secondarily,  in 
those  of  general  social  intercourse,  which  together 
form  the  medium  of  by  far  the  larger  part  of  our 
satisfactions.  In  spite  of  the  selfishness  w^hich  dis- 
tinguishes so  much  of  human  action,  a  man's  desire 
to  secure  for  his  family  such  wealth  as  he  can  is  one 
of  the  strongest  motives  of  human  activity  known ; 
and  the  fact  that  it  operates  in  the  case  of  many 
who  are  notoriously  selfish  otherwise,  shows  how 
deeply  it  is  ingrained  in  the  human  character.  One 
of  the  first  uses  to  which  a  man  who  has  produced 
great  wealth  puts  it  is  in  most  cases  to  build  a  house 
more  or  less  proportionate  to  his  means;  and  it  is 
his  pride  and  pleasure  to  see  his  wife  and  children 
acclimatize  themselves  to  their  new  environment. 
But  such  a  house  would  lose  most  of  its  charm  and 
meaning  for  him  if  the  fortune  which  enabled  him 
to  live  in  it  was  to  dwindle  with  each  day's  expendi- 
ture, and  his  family  after  his  death  were  to  be 
turned  into  the  street  beggars.     If  each  individual 

252 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

were  a  unit  whose  interests  ended  with  himself;  if 
generations  were  Hke  stratified  rocks,  superposed 
one  on  another  but  not  interconnected ;  if — to  quote 
a  pithy  phrase,  I  do  not  know  from  whom — "  if  all 
men  were  bom  orphans  and  died  bachelors,"  then 
the  right  to  draw  income  from  the  products  of  per- 
manently productive  capital  would  for  most  men 
lose  much  of  what  now  makes  it  desirable.  But 
since  individuals  and  generations  are  not  thus  sepa- 
rated actually,  but  are,  on  the  contrary,  not  merely 
as  a  scientific  fact,  but  as  a  fact  which  is  vivid 
to  every  one  within  the  limits  of  his  daily  conscious- 
ness, dovetailed  into  one  another,  and  could  not 
exist  otherwise,  a  man's  own  fortune,  with  the  kind 
of  life  that  is  dependent  on  it,  is  similarly  dove- 
tailed into  fortunes  of  other  people,  and  his  present 
and  theirs  is  dovetailed  into  a  general  future. 

We  have  seen  how  this  is  the  case  with  regard  to 
his  own  family;  but  the  matter  does  not  end  there. 
Individual  households  do  not  live  in  isolation ;  and 
there  are  for  this  fact  two  closely  allied  reasons. 
If  they  did  there  could  be  no  marriage ;  there  could 
also  be  nothing  like  social  intercourse.  It  is  social 
intercourse  of  a  more  or  less  extended  kind  that 
alone  makes  possible,  not  only  love  and  marriage, 
but  most  of  the  pleasures  that  give  color  to  life. 
We  see  this  in  all  ranks  and  in  all  stages  of  civiliza- 
tion. Savages  meet  together  in  numerous  groups 
to  dance,  like  civilized  men  and  women  in  New  York 
or  in  London.  The  feast,  or  the  meal  eaten  by  a 
large  gathering,  is  one  of  the  most  universal  of  all 

253 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

human  enjoyments.  But  in  all  such  cases  the 
enjoyment  involves  one  thing — namely,  a  certain 
similarity,  underlying  individual  differences,  be- 
tween those  persons  who  take  part  in  it.  Intimate 
social  intercourse  is,  as  a  rule,  possible  only  between 
those  who  are  similar  in  their  tastes  and  ideas  with 
regard  to  the  minute  details  which  for  most  of  us 
make  up  the  tesseras  of  life's  daily  mosaic — similar 
in  their  manners,  in  their  standards  of  beauty  and 
comfort,  in  their  memories,  their  prospects,  or  (to 
be  brief)  in  what  we  may  call  their  class  habitua- 
tions. This  is  true  of  all  men,  be  their  social  posi- 
tion what  it  may.  It  is  true,  of  course,  that  the 
quahty  of  a  man's  life,  as  a  whole,  depends  on  other 
things  also,  of  a  wider  kind  than  these.  It  depends 
not  only  on  the  fact,  but  also  on  his  consciousness 
of  the  fact,  that  he  is  a  citizen  of  a  certain  state  or 
country,  though  with  most  of  its  inhabitants  he 
will  never  exchange  a  word,  or  that  he  is  a  member 
of  a  certain  church,  or  that,  being  a  man  and  not  a 
monkey,  his  destiny  is  identified  with  that  of  the 
human  species.  But,  so  far  as  his  enjoyment  of 
private  wealth  is  concerned,  each  man  as  a  rule, 
though  to  this  there  are  individual  exceptions,  en- 
joys it  mainly  through  the  life  of  his  own  de  facto 
class — the  people  whose  manners  and  habits  are 
more  or  less  similar  to  his  own,  because  they  result 
from  the  possession  of  more  or  less  similar  means. 
He  is,  therefore,  not  interested  in  the  pennanence 
of  his  own  wealth  only.  He  is  equally  interested 
in  the  permanence  of  the  wealth  of  a  body  of  men, 

254 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

the  life  of  which  must,  like  that  of  all  corporations, 
be  continuous. 

There  is  in  this  fact  much  more  than  at  first  ap- 
pears. Let  us  go  back  to  a  point  insisted  on  in  the 
previous  chapter.  It  was  there  shown,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  question  of  abstract  justice,  that  those 
who  attack  interest  on  the  ground  that  it  is  essen- 
tially income  for  which  its  recipients  give  nothing 
in  return,  fall  into  the  error  of  ignoring  the  ele- 
ment of  time,  without  reference  to  which  the  whole 
process  of  life  is  unintelligible.  It  was  shown,  by 
various  examples,  that  in  a  large  number  of  cases 
the  efforts  which  ultimately  result  in  the  produc- 
tion of  great  wealth  do  not  produce  it  till  after, 
often  till  long  after,  the  original  effort  has  come 
altogether  to  an  end.  Let  us  now  take  this  point 
in  connection,  not  with  abstract  theories,  but  with 
the  concrete  facts  of  conduct.  Here  again  those 
who  attack  interest  fall  into  the  same  error.  For 
example,  in  answer  to  arguments  used  by  me  when 
speaking  in  America,  one  socialistic  critic  eagerly 
following  another  called  my  attention  by  name  to 
persons  notoriously  wealthy,  some  of  whom  had 
never  engaged  in  active  business  at  all,  while  others 
had  ceased  to  do  so  for  many  years ;  and  demanded 
of  me  whether  I  contended  that  idlers  such  as  these 
are  doing  anything  whatever  to  produce  the  in- 
comes which  they  are  now  enjoying.  If  they  are, 
said  the  critics,  let  this  wonderful  fact  be  demon- 
strated. If  they  are  not,  then  it  must  stand  to 
reason  that  the  community  will  gain,  and  cannot 

255 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

possibly  suffer,  by  gradually  taking  the  incomes  of 
these  persons  away  from  them,  and  rendering  it 
impossible  that  incomes  of  a  similar  kind  shall  in 
the  future  be  ever  enjoyed  by  anybody. 

The  general  nature  of  the  error  involved  in  this 
class  of  argument  can  be  shown  by  a  very  simple 
illustration.  In  many  countries  the  government 
year  by  year  makes  a  large  sum  by  state  lotteries. 
This  may  be  a  vicious  procedure,  but  let  us  assume 
for  the  moment  that  it  is  legitimate,  and  that  every- 
body is  interested  in  its  perpetuation.  The  largest 
of  the  prizes  drawn  in  such  lotteries  is  considerable 
— often  amounting  to  one  hundred  thousand  dollars. 
Now  as  soon  as  the  drawing  on  any  one  occasion 
had  been  accomplished,  it  might  be  argued  with 
perfect  truth,  in  respect  of  that  occasion  only,  that, 
the  man  who  had  won  such  fortune  having  done 
nothing  to  produce  it,  the  community  would  be  so 
much  richer  if  the  government,  having  paid  the 
money  to  him,  w^ere  to  take  it  all  back  again  by  a 
special  tax  on  winnings.  This  would  be  true  with 
respect  to  that  one  occasion;  but  if  any  govern- 
ment were  to  follow  such  a  procedure,  no  one  would 
ever  buy  a  lottery  ticket  again;  and  the  whole 
lottery  s^^stem  would  thenceforth  come  to  an  end. 

What  is  true  of  wealth  won  in  lotteries  is  true  of 
wealth  in  general.  If  the  desire  of  possessing 
wealth  is  in  any  way  a  stimulus  to  the  production 
'of  it,  those  w^ho  are  motived  to  produce  it  by  this 
desire  to-day  are  motived  by  the  desire  of  a  some- 
thing which  they  see  to  be  desirable  and  attainable 

256 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

because  they  see  it  around  them,  embodied  in  the 
position  of  others,  as  the  final  result  of  the  efforts 
of  a  long-past  yesterday.  If  this  result  were  never 
to  be  seen  realized,  no  human  being  would  make 
any  effort  to  achieve  it.  Let  us — to  go  into  par- 
ticulars— suppose  that  the  sole  desire  which  moves 
exceptional  men  to  devote  their  capacities  to  the 
augmentation  of  their  country's  wealth  is  the  de- 
sire to  join  a  class  which,  whether  idle  or  active 
otherwise  —  whether  devoted  to  mere  pleasure  or 
to  philanthropy,  or  an  enlightened  patronage  of 
the  arts,  or  to  speculative  thought  and  study — is 
itself  in  an  economic  sense  altogether  unproductive. 
In  order  to  join  such  a  class,  and  to  work  with  a 
view  of  joining  it,  society  must  be  so  organized  that 
such  a  class  can  exist ;  and  the  fact  of  its  existence 
constitutes  the  main  moral  magnet  which,  on  our 
present  hypotheses,  is  permanently  essential  to  the 
development  of  the  highest  economic  activity. 
Such  being  the  case,  then,  the  following  conclusion 
reveals  itself,  which,  although  it  may  seem  para- 
doxical, will  be  found  on  reflection  to  be  self-evi- 
dent— the  conclusion — namely,  that  a  class  which, 
if  considered  by  itself,  is  absolutely  non-productive, 
may,  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  social  sys- 
tem as  a  whole,  be  an  essential  and  cardinal  factor 
in  the  working  machinery  of  production,  constitut- 
ing, as  it  would  do  by  the  mere  fact  of  its  existence, 
the  charged  electric  accumulator  by  which  the  ma- 
chinery is  kept  in  motion ;  just  as  the  mere  existence 
of  men,  seen  to  be  secure  in  their  possession  of  the 

257 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

prizes  of  past  lotteries,  is  the  magnet  which  alone 
can  make  other  men  buy  tickets  for  the  lotteries  of 
the  future. 

I  have  given  this  case  as  an  assumption;  but  it 
is  not  an  assumption  only.  The  desire  for  wealth 
as  a  means  of  living  in  absolute  idleness  is  probably 
confined,  as  a  fact,  in  all  countries  to  a  few.  In 
America  especially  it  is  a  matter  of  surprise  to 
strangers  that  men  who  have  made  fortunes  be- 
yond the  possibilities  of  pleasurable  expenditure  so 
rarely  retire  on  them  to  cultivate  the  pursuits  of 
leisure.  But  even  in  America,  if  they  do  not  value 
leisure  for  themselves,  they  value  it  for  their 
women,  to  whom,  there  as  in  all  countries,  four- 
fifths  of  the  charm  and  excitement  of  private  life 
are  due;  and  the  sustained  possibility  of  leisure, 
even  if  not  the  enjoyment  of  it — a  possibility  which 
can  rest  only  on  a  basis  of  sustained  fortunes — is  the 
main  advantage  which,  in  all  civilized  countries, 
gives  wealth  its  meaning  for  those  who  already 
possess  it,  and  its  charm  for  those  who  are,  in  order 
to  possess  it,  exerting  at  any  given  moment  their 
energies  and  their  intellect  in  producing  it. 

The  source  of  such  sustained  fortunes,  in  their 
distinctively  modern  form,  is,  as  we  have  seen 
already,  such  and  such  forces  of  nature,  which, 
captured  and  embodied  in  machines  and  other 
appliances  by  the  masters  of  science  and  men  of 
executive  energy,  and  subsequently  directed  by 
other  men  of  cognate  talents,  supplement  the 
efficiency  of  ordinary  human  labor,  thus  yielding 

258 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

the  surplus  of  which  modern  fortunes  are  a  part, 
the  remainder  forming  a  fund  which  diffuses  itself 
throughout  the  mass  of  the  community.  That  part 
of  the  surplus  which  constitutes  such  fortunes  is 
interest;  and  now  let  us  sum  up  what  in  this  and 
the  previous  chapter  our  examination  of  the  criti- 
cisms directed  against  interest  has  shown  us. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  we  saw  that  the  theoreti- 
cal attack  on  interest,  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
income  which  is  not  earned  by  the  recipients,  but 
is  virtually  taken  by  the  few  from  the  products  of 
the  labor  of  the  many,  is  chimerical  in  its  moral 
and  false  in  its  economic  implications. 

We  saw,  in  the  second  place,  coming  down  to  the 
practical  aspects  of  the  question,  that  interest  is  the 
only  form  in  which  the  owners  of  capital  can  enjoy 
their  wealth  at  all,  without  drying  up  the  sources 
from  which  most  modern  w^ealth  springs,  thus 
bringing  ruin  to  the  community  no  less  than  to 
themselves. 

We  saw,  in  the  third  place,  that,  quite  apart  from 
the  welfare  of  the  community,  interest  constitutes, 
for  the  owners  of  wealth  themselves,  the  means  of 
enjoying  it  which  mainly  makes  it  desirable,  and 
the  object  for  the  sake  of  which,  at  any  given  mo- 
ment, the  master  spirits  of  industry  are  engaged  in 
producing  and  increasing  it. 

The  reader  must  observe,  however,  that  this  con- 
clusion is  here  stated  in  general  terms  only.  It  has 
not  been  contended — for  this  question  has  not  been 
touched  upon  —  that   interest   may  not,  when  re- 

259 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

ceived  in  certain  amounts,  be  justifiably  made  the 
subject  of  some  special  taxation.  Any  such  ques- 
tion must  be  decided  by  reference  to  special  circum- 
stances, and  cannot  be  discussed  apart  from  them. 
Nor  has  it  been  contended  that,  within  certain 
limits,  the  power  of  bequest  is  not  susceptible  of 
modification  without  impairing  the  energies  of  the 
few  or  the  general  prosperity  of  the  many.  The 
sole  point  insisted  on  here  is  this:  that  any  special 
tax  on  interest,  or  any  tampering  with  the  powers 
of  bequest,  begins  to  be  disastrous  to  all  classes 
alike,  if  it  renders,  and  in  proportion  as  it  renders 
to  any  appreciable  degree,  the  natural  rewards  of 
the  great  producers  of  wealth  less  desirable  in  their 
own  eyes  than  ttiey  are  and  otherwise  would  be. 


CHAPTER  XV 

EQUALITY    OF    OPPORTUNITY 

Equality  of  opportunity,  as  an  abstract  demand,  is  in  an 
abstract  sense  just;  but  it  changes  its  character  when  applied 
to  a  world  of  unequal  individuals. 

Equality  of  opportunity  in  the  human  race-course.  To  mul- 
tiply competitors  is  to  multiply  failures. 

Educational  opportunity.  Unequal  stvidents  soon  make  op- 
portunities unequal. 

Opportunity  in  industrial  life.  Socialistic  promises  of  equal 
industrial  opportunities  for  all.  Each  "to  paddle  his  own 
canoe." 

These  absurd  promises  inconsistent  with  the  arguments  of 
socialists  themselves. 

A  socialist's  attempt  to  defend  these  promises  by  reference 
to  employes  of  the  state  post-office. 

Equality  of  industrial  opportunity  for  those  who  believe 
themselves  possessed  of  exceptional  talent  and  aspire  "to 
rise." 

Opportunities  for  such  men  involve  costly  experiment  and 
are  necessarily  limited. 

Claimants  who  would  waste  them  indefinitely  more  numerous 
than  those  who  could  use  them  profitably. 

Such  opportunities  mean  the  granting  to  one  man  the  con- 
trol of  other  men  by  means  of  wage-capital. 

Disastrous  effects  of  granting  such  opportunities  to  all  or 
even  most  of  those  who  would  believe  themselves  entitled  to 
them. 

True  remedy  for  the  difficulties  besetting  the  problem  of 
opportunity. 

Ruskin  on  human  demands.  Needs  and  "romantic  wishes." 
i8  261 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

The  former  not  largely  alterable.  The  latter  depend  mainly  on 
education. 

The  problem  practically  soluble  by  a  wise  moral  education 
only,  which  will  correlate  demand  and  expectation  with  the 
personal  capacities  of  the  individual. 

Relative  equality  of  opportunity,  not  absolute  equality, 
the  true  formula. 

Equality  of  opportunity,  though  much  talked  about  by 
socialists,  is  essentially  a  formula  of  competition  and  opposed 
to  the  principles  of  socialism. 


Having  now  dealt  with  two  of  those  three  ideas 
or  conceptions  which,  though  not  necessarily  con- 
nected with  the  specific  doctrines  of  socialism,  owe 
much  of  their  present  diffusion  to  the  activity  of 
socialistic  preachers  —  that  is  to  say,  the  idea, 
purely  statistical,  that  labor,  as  contrasted  with 
the  directive  ability  of  it,  actually  produces  much 
more  than  it  gets,  and  the  farther  idea  that  the 
many  could  ameliorate  their  own  position  by  ap- 
propriating the  interest  now  received  by  the  few — 
having  dealt  with  these  two  ideas,  it  remains  for  us 
to  consider  the  third — namely,  that  which  is  gen- 
erally suggested  by  the  formula  Equality  of  Oppor- 
tunity, or,  more  particularly  (for  this  is  what  con- 
cerns us  here) ,  equality  of  opportunity  in  the  domain 
of  economic  production. 

We  must  start  with  recollecting  that  if  the 
wealth  of  a  country  depends  mainly,  as  we  have 
here  seen  that  it  does,  on  the  efforts  of  those  of  its 
citizens  whose  industrial  talent  is  the  greatest,  the 
more  effectively  all  such  talent  is  provided  with  an 
opportunity  of  exerting  itself  the  greater  will  the 

262 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

wealth  and  prosperity  of  that  country  be.  In  other 
words,  if  potential  talent  is  to  be  actualized,  oppor- 
tiinity  is  as  needful  for  its  exercise  as  is  the  stim- 
ulus of  a  proportionate  reward.  That  economic 
opportunity  ought,  therefore  to  be  equalized,  so 
far  as  possible,  is,  as  an  abstract  principle,  too  ob- 
vious to  need  demonstration.  But  abstract  prin- 
ciples are  useless  till  we  apply  them  to  a  concrete 
world;  and  when  we  apply  our  abstract  doctrine 
of  opportunity  to  the  complex  facts  of  society  and 
human  nature,  a  principle  so  simple  in  theory  will 
undergo  as  many  modifications  as  a  film  of  level 
water  will  if  we  spill  it  over  an  uneven  surface. 

The  first  fact  which  will  confront  us,  when  we 
come  down  from  theory  to  facts,  is  one  which  could 
not  be  more  forcibly  emphasized  than  it  has  been 
by  a  socialistic  writer,  whose  utterances  were 
quoted  in  one  of  our  previous  chapters.  This  is  the 
fact  that,  in  respect  of  their  powers  of  production, 
just  as  of  most  others,  human  beings  are  in  the 
highest  degree  unequal.  They  are  unequal  in  in- 
tellect and  imagination.  More  especially  they  are 
imequal  in  energy,  alertness,  executive  capacity, 
initiative,  and  in  what  we  may  describe  generally 
as  practical  driving  force.  Such  being  the  case, 
then,  if  it  could  actually  be  brought  about  that 
every  individual  at  a  given  period  of  his  life  should 
start  with  economic  opportunities  identical  with 
those  of  his  contemporaries,  each  generation  would 
be  like  horses  chosen  at  haphazard,  and  started 
at  the  same  instant  to  struggle  over  the  same  course 

263 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

in  the  direction  of  a  common  winning-post.  And 
what  would  be  the  result?  A  few  individuals 
would  be  out  of  sight  in  a  moment;  the  mass  at 
various  distances  would  be  struggling  far  behind 
them,  and  a  large  residuum  would  have  been  blown 
before  it  had  advanced  a  furlong.  Thus,  by  making 
men's  adventitious  opportunities  equal,  we  should 
no  more  equalize  the  result  for  the  sake  of  which 
the  opportunities  were  demanded  than  we  should 
give  every  cab-horse  in  London  a  chance  of  winning 
the  Derby  by  allowing  it  on  Derby  Day  to  go 
plodding  over  the  course  at  Epsom.  On  the  con- 
trary, by  inducing  all  to  contemplate  the  same  kind 
of  success,  we  should  be  multiplying  the  sense  of 
failure  and  dooming  the  majority  to  a  gratuitous 
discontent  with  positions  in  which  they  might  have 
taken  a  pride  had  they  not  learned  to  look  beyond 
them. 

And  now,  from  this  fact,  to  which  we  shall  come 
back  presently,  let  us  turn  to  the  question  of  how, 
and  in  what  respects,  equality  of  opportunity  is  in 
practical  life  attainable. 

The  most  obvious  manner  in  which  an  ap- 
proach to  such  equality  can  be  made  is  by  an 
equalization  of  opportunities  for  education  in  early 
life,  or,  in  other  words,  by  a  similar  course  of 
schooling,  a  similar  access  to  books,  and  similar 
leisure  for  studying  them.  But  even  here,  at  this 
preliminary  stage,  we  shall  find  that  the  equality 
of  opportunity  is  to  a  large  extent  illusory.  Let  us 
suppose  that  there  are  two  boys,  equal  in  general 

264 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF  SOCIALISM 

intelligence,  and  unequal  only  in  their  powers  of 
mental  concentration,  who  start  their  study  of 
German  side  by  side  in  the  same  class-room.  One 
boy,  in  the  course  of  a  year  or  so  will  be  able  to  read 
German  books  almost  as  easily  as  books  in  his  own 
language,  while  the  other  will  hardly  be  able  to 
guess  the  drift  of  a  sentence  without  laborious  ref- 
erence to  his  hated  grammar  and  dictionary.  Now 
when  once  a  situation  such  as  this  has  arisen,  the 
opportunities  of  the  two  boys  have  ceased  to  be 
equal  any  longer.  The  one  has  placed  himself  at 
an  indefinite  advantage  over  the  other,  which  is 
quite  distinct  from  the  superiority  originally  in- 
herent in  himself.  Among  the  educational  oppor- 
tunities which  reformers  desire  to  equalize,  one  of 
the  chief  is  that  of  access  to  adequate  libraries; 
and  it  is,  they  say,  in  this  respect  more  perhaps  than 
any  other  that  the  rich  man  has  at  present  an  un- 
fair advantage  over  the  poor.  It  is  virtually  this 
precise  advantage  that  will  now  be  in  possession  of 
the  boy  who  has  thus  far  outstripped  his  classmate. 
In  his  mastery  of  German  he  has  a  key  to  a  vast 
literature — a  key  which  the  other  has  not.  He  is 
now  like  a  rich  man  with  an  illimitable  library  of 
his  own,  while  the  other  by  comparison  is  like  a 
poor  man  who  can  get  at  no  books  at  all.  Thus  if 
opportunity,  in  its  most  fundamental  form,  were 
equalized  for  all  boys,  no  matter  how  completely, 
the  equality  would  be  only  momentary.  It  would 
begin  to  disappear  by  the  end  of  the  first  few  months, 
not  because  the  boys  would  still,  as  they  did  at 

265 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

starting,  be  bringing  to  their  tasks  intrinsically 
unequal  faculties,  but  because  some  of  them  would 
have  already  monopolized  the  aid  of  an  adventitious 
knowledge  by  which  the  practical  efficiency  of  their 
natural  faculties  would  be  multiplied. 

But  education  is  merely  a  preliminary  to  the 
actual  business  of  life.  Let  us  pass  on  to  the  case 
of  our  equally  educated  youths  when  they  enter 
on  the  practical  business  of  making  their  own 
fortunes.  What  kind  of  equal  opportunity  can  be 
possibly  provided  for  them  now? 

Since  socialists  are  the  reformers  who,  in  dealing 
with  objects  aimed  at,  are  least  apt  to  be  daunted 
by  practical  difficulties,  let  us  see  how  equality  of 
opportunity  in  business  life  is  conceived  of  and 
described  by  them.  The  general  contention  of 
socialists  in  this  respect,  is,  says  one  of  their  best- 
known  American  spokesmen,  "that  the  fact  that 
capital  is  now  in  the  hands  of  private  persons  gives 
them  an  unfair  advantage  over  those  who  own 
nothing,"  for  capital  consists  of  the  implements  of 
advantageous  production;  and  socialists,  he  says, 
would  secure  an  equality  of  industrial  opportunity 
for  all  by  "  vesting  the  ownership  of  the  means  of 
production  in  the  state";  the  result  of  which  pro- 
cedure would,  he  goes  on,  be  this:  "that  every  one 
would  have  his  own  canoe,  and  it  would  be  up  to 
each  to  do  his  own  paddling." 

Now  purists  in  thought  and  argument  might 
make  it  a  subject  of  complaint,  perhaps,  that  the 
writer,  as  soon  as  he  reaches  the  vital  part  of  his 

266 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

argument,  should  lapse  into  the  imagery  of  an  old 
music-hall  song.  But  such  an  objection  would  be 
very  much  misplaced,  for  the  ideas  entertained  by 
socialists  as  to  this  particular  point  closely  resemble 
those  which  make  music-hall  songs  popular.  They 
consist  of  familiar  images  which  are  accepted  with- 
out being  analyzed,  and  the  image  of  a  man  seated 
in  an  industrial  canoe  of  his  own,  and  paddling  it 
just  as  he  pleases  without  reference  to  anybody  else, 
very  admirably  represents  the  lot  which  socialists 
promise  to  everybody,  and  which  dwells  as  a 
possibility  in  the  imagination  of  even  their  serious 
thinkers.  But  let  us  take  this  dream  in  connection 
with  facts  of  the  modern  world,  which  these  men, 
in  much  of  their  reasoning,  themselves  recognize 
as  unalterable,  and  we  shall  see  it  give  place  to 
realities  of  a  very  different  aspect. 

To  judge  from  our  author's  language,  one  would 
suppose  that  modern  capital  was  made  up  entirely 
of  separate  little  implements  like  sewing-machines, 
and  that  every  one  would,  if  the  state  were  the  sole 
capitalist,  receive  on  application  a  machine  of  the 
same  grade,  which  he  might  take  away  with  him, 
and  use  or  break  in  a  corner.  Now,  if  modern 
capital  were  really  of  this  nature,  the  state  no  doubt 
might  conceivably  do  something  like  what  the 
writer  suggests,  in  the  way  of  dealing  out  similar 
industrial  opportunities  to  everybody.  But,  as  he 
himself  is  perfectly  well  aware,  the  distinctive 
feature  of  capital  in  the  modern  world  is  one 
which  renders  any  such  course  impossible.     Modern 

267 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

capital,  as  a  whole,  in  so  far  as  it  consists  of  im- 
plements, consists  not  of  implements  which  can 
be  used  by  each  user  separately.  It  consists  of 
enormous  mechanisms,  with  the  works  and  struct- 
ures pertaining  to  them,  which  severally  require  to 
be  used  by  thousands  of  men  at  once,  and  which 
no  one  of  the  number  can  use  without  reference 
to  the  operations  of  the  others.  If  the  state  were 
to  acquire  the  ownership  of  all  the  steel-mills  at 
Pittsburg,  how  could  it  do  more  than  is  done  by 
their  present  owners,  to  confer  on  each  of  the  em- 
ployes any  kind  of  position  analogous  to  that  of  a 
man  "who  has  his  own  canoe"  ?  The  state  could 
just  as  easily  perform  the  literal  feat  of  cutting  up 
the  Liisitania  into  a  hundred  thousand  dinghys,  in 
each  of  which  somebody  would  enjoy  the  equal 
opportunity  of  paddling  a  passenger  from  Sandy 
Hook  to  Southampton. 

But  we  will  not  tie  our  author  too  closely  to 
the  terms  of  his  own  metaphor.  The  w^ork  from 
which  I  have  just  quoted  is  a  booklet  in  which  he 
devoted  himself  to  the  task  of  refuting  in  detail 
the  arguments  urged  by  myself  in  the  course  of 
my  American  speeches.  We  will,  therefore,  turn  ■ 
to  his  criticism  of  what,  in  one  of  my  speeches,  I 
said  about  the  state  post-office ;  and  we  shall  there 
get  further  light  with  regard  to  his  real  meaning. 
I  asked  how  any  sorter  or  letter-carrier  employed 
in  the  post-office  by  the  state  was  any  more  his 
own  master,  or  had  any  more  opportunities  of 
freedom,  than  a  messenger  or  other  person  em- 

268 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

ployed  by  a  private  firm.  Our  author's  answer  is 
this:  "That  the  pubHc  can  determine  what  the 
wages  of  a  postman  shall  be  —  that  is,  they  can, 
if  they  so  choose  (by  their  votes) ,  double  the  wages 
now  prevailing."  Therefore,  our  author  proceeds, 
"the  postal  employe,  in  a  manner,  may  be  con- 
sidered as  a  man  employing  himself."  Now  first 
let  me  observe  that,  as  was  shown  in  our  seventh 
chapter,  wages  under  socialism,  just  as  under  the 
present  system,  could  be  no  more  than  a  share  of  the 
total  product  of  the  community;  and  the  claims 
advanced  to  a  share  of  this  by  any  one  group  of 
workers  would  be  consequently  limited  by  the 
claims  of  all  the  others.  The  question,  therefore, 
of  whether  the  postmen's  wages  should  be  doubled 
at  any  time,  or  whether  they  might  not  have  to  be 
halved,  would  not  depend  only  on  votes,  but,  also 
and  primarily,  on  the  extent  of  the  funds  available 
and  in  so  far  as  it  depended  on  votes  at  all,  the 
votes  would  not  be  those  of  the  postmen;  they 
would  be  the  votes  of  the  general  public;  and 
any  special  demand  on  the  part  of  the  body  of 
workers  would  be  neutralized  by  similar  demands 
on  the  part  of  all  the  others.  Further,  if  these 
employes,  of  themselves,  could  not  determine  their 
own  wages,  still  less  would  they  determine  the 
details  of  the  work  required  of  them.  A  postman, 
like  a  private  messenger,  is  bound  to  do  certain 
things,  not  one  of  which  he  prescribes  personally  to 
himself.  At  stated  hours  he  must  daily  be  present 
at  an  office,  receive  a  bundle  of  letters,  and  then 

269 


A    CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

set  out  to  deliver  them  at  private  doors,  in  accord- 
ance with  orders  which  he  finds  written  on  the 
envelopes.  Such  is  the  case  at  present,  and  social- 
ism would  do  nothing  to  modify  it.  If  our  author 
thinks  that  a  man,  under  these  conditions,  is  his  ow^n 
employer,  our  author  must  be  easily  satisfied,  and 
we  will  not  quarrel  with  his  opinion.  It  will  be 
enough  to  point  out  that  the  moment  he  descends 
to  details  his  promise  that  socialism  would  equalize 
economic  opportunity  for  all  reduces  itself  to  the 
contention  that  the  ordinary  laborer  or  worker 
would,  if  the  state  employed  him,  have  a  better 
chance  of  promotion  and  increased  wages  than  he 
has  to-day,  when  employed  by  a  private  firm,  and 
(we  may  add,  though  our  author  does  not  here  say 
so)  that  some  sort  of  useful  work  would  be  de- 
vised by  the  state  for  everybody. 

Now,  although  every  item  of  this  contention,  and 
especially  the  last,  is  disputable,  let  us  suppose,  for 
argument's  sake,  that  it  is,  on  the  whole,  well 
founded.  Even  so,  we  have  not  touched  the  real 
crux  of  the  question.  We  have  dealt  only  with  the 
case  of  the  ordinary  worker,  who  fulfils  the  ordinary 
functions  which  must  always  be  those  of  nine  men 
out  of  every  ten,  let  society  be  constituted  in  what 
way  we  will.  It  remains  for  us  to  consider  the  case 
of  those  who  are  fitted,  or  believe  themselves  to  be 
fitted,  for  work  of  a  wider  kind,  and  who  aspire  to 
gain,  by  performing  this,  an  indefinitely  ampler 
remuneration.  This  ambitious  and  exceptionally 
active  class  is  the  class  for  which  the  promise  of 

270 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALLSM 

equal  opportunities  possesses  its  main  significance, 
and  in  its  relation  to  which  it  mainly  requires  to  be 
examined.  Indeed,  the  writer  from  whom  we  are 
quoting  recognizes  this  himself;  for  he  gives  his 
special  attention  to  the  economic  position  of  those 
who,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  are  endowed  with 
what  he  calls  "genius";  and  in  order  to  illustrate 
how  socialism  would  deal  with  these,  he  cites  two 
cases  from  the  annals  of  electrical  engineering,  in 
which  opportunities,  not  forthcoming  otherwise, 
were  given  by  the  state  to  inventors  of  realizing 
successful  inventions. 

Now  what  our  author  and  others  who  reason  like 
him  forget,  is  that  the  opportunities  with  which 
we  are  here  concerned  differ  in  one  all-important 
particular  from  those  which  concern  us  in  the  case 
either  of  education  or  of  ordinary  employment. 
If  one  boy  uses  his  educational  opportunities  ill,  he 
does  nothing  to  prejudice  the  opportunities  of 
others  who  use  them  well.  Should  a  sorter  of 
letters,  who,  if  he  had  been  sharp  and  trustworthy, 
might  have  risen  to  the  highest  and  best-paid  post 
in  his  department,  throw  his  opportunities  away  by 
inattention  or  otherwise,  the  loss  resulting  is  con- 
fined to  the  man  himself.  The  opportunities  open 
to  his  fellows  remain  what  they  were  before.  But 
when  we  come  to  industrial  activity  of  those  higher 
and  rarer  kinds,  on  which  the  sustained  and  pro- 
gressive welfare  of  the  entire  community  depends, 
such  as  invention,  or  any  form  of  far-reaching  and 
original  enterprise,  the  kind  of  opportunity  which 

271 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

a  man  requires  is  not  an  opportunity  of  exerting  his 
own  faculties  in  isolation,  like  a  sorter  who  is 
specially  expert  in  deciphering  illegible  addresses. 
It  is  an  opportunity  of  directing  the  efforts  of  a 
large  number  of  other  men.  Apart  from  the  case 
of  craftsmanship  and  artistic  production,  all  the 
higher  industrial  efforts  are  reducible  to  a  control 
of  others,  and  can  be  made  only  by  men  who  have 
the  means  of  controlling  them.  Since  this  is  one 
of  the  principal  truths  that  have  been  elucidated  in 
the  present  volume,  it  is  sufficient  to  reassert  it  here, 
without  further  comment.  If,  therefore,  a  man  is 
to  be  given  the  opportunity  of  embodying  and  try- 
ing an  invention  in  a  really  practical  fonn,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  put  at  his  disposal,  let  us  disguise  the 
fact  as  we  may,  the  services  of  a  number  of  other 
men  who  will  work  in  accordance  with  his  orders. 
This,  as  we  have  seen  already,  is  w^hat  is  done  by  the 
ordinary  investor  whenever  he  lends  capital  to  an 
inventor.  He  supplies  him  with  the  food  by  which 
the  requisite  subordinates  must  be  fed;  and  the 
state,  were  the  state  the  capitalist,  would  do  virtu- 
ally the  same  thing.  It  could  give  him  his  oppor- 
ttmity  in  no  other  way. 

Further,  if  the  invention  in  question  turns  out 
to  be  successful — here  is  another  point  which  has 
already  been  explained  and  emphasized — the  wage- 
capital  which  has  been  consumed  by  the  laborers  is 
replaced  by  some  productive  implement,  which  is 
more  than  the  equivalent  of  the  labor  force  spent 
in  constructing  it.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  in- 

272 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

vention  turns  out  to  be  a  failure,  the  wage-capital  is 
wasted,  and,  so  far  as  the  general  welfare  is  con- 
cerned, the  state  might  just  as  well  have  thrown 
the  whole  of  it  into  the  sea.  Since,  then,  the  op- 
portunities which  the  state  would  have  at  its  dis- 
posal, would  consist  at  any  moment  of  a  given 
amount  of  capital,  and  since  any  portion  of  this, 
which  was  used  unsuccessfully  would  be  lost,  the 
number  of  opportunities  which  the  state  could 
allocate  to  individuals  would  be  limited,  and  each 
opportunity  which  was  wasted  by  one  man  would 
diminish  the  number  that  could  be  placed  at  the 
disposal  of  others. 

Now  any  one  who  knows  anything  of  human 
nature  and  actual  life  knows  this — that  the  number 
of  men  who  firmly  and  passionately  believe  in  the 
value  of  their  own  inventions,  or  other  industrial 
projects,  is  far  in  excess  of  those  whose  ideas  and 
projects  have  actually  any  value  whatsoever.  When 
the  Great  Eastern,  the  largest  ship  of  its  time,  had 
been  built  on  the  Thames  by  the  celebrated  engineer 
Brunei,  its  launching  was  attended  with  unforeseen 
and  what  seemed  to  be  insuperable  difficulties.  Mr. 
Brunei's  descendants  have,  I  believe,  still  in  their 
possession,  a  collection  of  drawings,  sent  him  by 
a  variety  of  inventors,  and  representing  all  sorts 
of  devices  by  which  the  launching  might  be  ac- 
complished. All  were,  as  the  draughtsmanship  was 
enough  to  show,  the  work  of  men  of  high  technical 
training;  but  the  practical  suggestions  embodied 
in  one  and  all  of  them  could  not  have  been  more 

273 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMINATION   OF    SOCIALISM 

grotesque  had  they  emanated  from  a  home  for 
madmen.  To  have  given  an  equality  of  oppor- 
tunity to  all  this  tribe  of  inventors  of  putting  their 
devices  to  the  test  would  have  probably  cost  more 
than  the  building  of  the  ship  itself,  and  the  ship 
at  the  end  would  have  been  stranded  in  the  dock 
still.  This  curious  case  is  representative,  and  is 
sufficiently  illustrative  of  the  fact  that  opportunity 
of  this  costly  kind  could  be  conceded  to  a  few  only 
of  those  who  would  demand,  and  believe  them- 
selves to  deserve  it ;  and  the  state,  as  the  trustee  of 
the  public,  would  have,  unless  it  were  prepared  to 
ruin  the  nation,  to  be  incomparably  more  cautious 
than  any  private  investor. 

Of  the  general  doctrine,  then,  that  the  opportu- 
nities of  all  should  be  equal,  we  may  repeat  that, 
as  an  abstract  proposition,  it  is  one  which  could 
be  contested  by  nobody;  but  we  have  seen  that, 
when  applied  to  societies  of  unequal  men,  and  to  the 
various  tasks  of  life,  its  original  simplicity  is  lost, 
and  it  does  not  become  even  intelligible  until  we  di- 
vest it  of  a  large  part  of  its  implications.  Economic 
or  industrial  opportunity  is,  we  have  seen,  of  three 
kinds — firstly,  educational  opportunity;  secondly, 
the  opportunity  of  performing,  and  receiving  the 
full  equivalent  of  an  ordinary  task  or  service,  such 
as  that  of  a  postman,  the  value  of  which  de- 
pends on  its  conformity  to  a  prescribed  pattern  or 
schedule ;  and  thirdly,  opportunity  of  directing  the 
work  of  others,  thereby  initiating  new  enterprises 
or  realizing  new  inventions — a  kind  of  opportuni- 

274 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMLNATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

ty  requiring  the  control  of  capital,  which  capital, 
whether  provided  by  the  state  or  otherwise,  would 
be  lost  to  the  community  unless  it  were  used  ef- 
ficiently. 

With  regard  to  educational  opportunity — it  has 
been  seen  that  it  is  possible  to  equalize  this,  ap- 
proximately if  not  entirely,  at  a  given  time  in  the 
early  lives  of  all,  but  that  it  would  be  possible  to 
maintain  the  equality  for  a  short  time  only. 

With  regard  to  opportunities  of  earning  a  liveli- 
hood subsequently  by  performing  one  or  other  of 
those  ordinary  and  innumerable  tasks  which  must 
always  fall  to  the  lot  of  four  men  out  of  every  five, 
we  may  say  that  an  equalization  of  opportunities  of 
this  kind  is  the  admitted  object  of  every  reformer 
and  statesman  who  believes  that  the  prosperity  of 
a  country  is  synonymous  with  the  welfare  of  its 
inhabitants.  In  achieving  this  object  there  are, 
however,  two  difficulties — one  being  the  difficulty, 
occasional  and  often  frequent  in  any  complex 
society,  of  devising  work  which  has  any  practical 
value,  and  replaces  its  own  cost,  for  all  those  who 
are  able  and  willing  to  perform  it ;  the  other  being 
the  difficulty  which  arises  from  the  existence  of 
persons  who  are  incapacitated,  by  some  species  of 
vice,  from  performing,  or  from  performing  ade- 
quately, any  useful  work  whatever.  We  must  here 
content  ourselves  with  observing  that  the  official 
directors  of  industry,  who  would  constitute  the 
state  under  socialism,  would  be  no  more  competent 
to  solve  the  first  than  are  the  private  employers  of 

275 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

to-day,  while  there  is  nothing  in  the  scheme  of 
society  put  forward  by  sociaHsts,  which  even  pur- 
ports to  supply  any  solution  of  the  second,  other 
than  a  more  drastic  application  of  the  methods 
applied  to-day. 

Thirdly,  with  regard  to  equality  of  opportunity 
for  those  whose  main  ambition  is  not  to  be  provided 
with  some  task-work  performable  by  their  own 
hands,  but  to  achieve  some  position  which  will 
enable  them  to  prescribe  tasks  to  others,  and  thus 
do  justice  to  their  real  or  supposed  talents  by  the 
construction  of  great  machines,  or  the  organization 
of  great  enterprises — in  other  words,  with  regard 
to  those  persons  whose  ambition  is  to  obtain  what 
are  called  the  prizes  of  life,  and  who  think  them- 
selves treated  unjustly  if  they  find  themselves  un- 
able to  gain  them — we  have  seen  that  to  provide 
equal  opportunities  for  all  or  even  for  most  of 
these,  is  in  the  very  nature  of  things  impossible. 
The  fundamental  reason  of  this,  let  me  say  once 
more,  is  the  fact  that  the  number  of  men  possessing 
sufficient  talent  to  conceive  ambitious  schemes  of 
one  kind  or  another  far  exceeds  the  number  of 
those  whose  talents  are  capable  of  producing  any 
useful  results;  and  to  give  to  this  majority  oppor- 
tunities of  testing  their  projects  by  experiment 
would  be  merely  to  deplete  the  resources  of  the 
entire  nation  for  the  sake  of  demonstrating  to  one 
particular  class  that  abortive  talents  are  worse  than 
no  talents  at  all. 

Here  we  are  in  the  presence  of  a  fact  far  wider 
276 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

than  this  special  manifestation  of  it.  In  the  animal 
and  the  vegetable  world,  no  less  than  in  the  human, 
the  successes  of  nature  are  the  siftings  of  its  partial 
failures :  and  in  order  to  secure  such  services  as  are 
really  productive  it  must  always  be  necessary  to 
squander  opportunites  to  a  certain  extent  in  the 
testing  of  talents  w^hich  ultimately  turn  out  to  be 
barren.  But  cases  of  this  kind  may  at  all  events  be 
reduced  to  a  minimum;  and  the  reduction  of  their 
number  is  possible,  because  they  are  largely  an 
artificial  product.  In  order  to  understand  how  this 
is,  we  must  go  back  again  to  the  question  of 
equality  of  opportunity  in  education,  and  consider 
it  under  an  aspect  which  has  not  yet  engaged  our 
attention. 

We  started  with  supposing  the  establishment  of 
a  system  of  education  which  would  offer  to  all  the 
same  books  and  teachers,  and  also — for  this  was 
part  of  our  assumption — equal  leisure  to  profit  by 
them,  and  we  noted  how  soon  opportunities  w^ould 
cease  to  be  equal  on  account  of  the  different  uses 
which  would  be  made  of  them  by  different  students. 
What  must  now  be  noted  is  that  as  matters  have 
been  conducted  hitherto,  attempts  to  make  educa- 
tional opportunities  equal  do  tend  to  produce  an 
equality  of  a  certain  kind.  Though  they  have  no 
tendency  to  equalize  powers  of  achievement,  they 
tend  to  produce  an  artificial  equality  of  expectation. 
In  order  to  elucidate  the  nature  of  this  fact,  and  its 
significance,  I  cannot  do  better  than  quote  a  passage 
from  Ruskin,  admirable  for  its  trenchant  felicity, 
19  277 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

which,  since  it  occurs  in  a  book  much  admired  by 
sociaHsts,  may  be  commended  to  their  special  at- 
tention. Economic  demand,  Ruskin  says,  is  the 
expression  of  economic  desires,  but  the  constitution 
of  human  nature  is  such  that  these  desires  are 
divisible  into  two  distinct  kinds — desires  for  the 
commodities  which  men  "need,"  and  desires  for 
commodities  which  they  "wish  for."  The  former 
arise  from  those  appetites  and  appetencies  in  re- 
spect of  which  all  are  equal.  They  are  virtually 
a  fixed  quantity,  and  the  economic  commodities 
requisite  for  their  healthy  satisfaction  constitute  a 
minimum  which  is  virtually  the  same  for  all  men. 
The  latter,  instead  of  being  fixed,  are  capable  of 
indefinite  variation,  and  in  these — the  desires  for 
what  men  "  wish  for  "  but  do  not  "  need  " — we  have 
the  origin  "  of  three-fourths  of  the  demands  existing 
in  the  world."  "These  demands  are,"  he  proceeds, 
"  romantic.  They  are  founded  on  visions,  idealisms, 
hopes,  and  affections,  and  the  regulation  of  the 
purse  is,  in  its  essence,  regulation  of  the  imagination 
and  the  heart." 

With  the  demands  which  originate  in  men's 
equal  needs  we  are  not  concerned  here.  It  is  im- 
possible to  modify  them  appreciably  either  by 
education  or  otherwise;  but  the  desires  or  wishes 
which  Ruskin  so  happily  calls  "romantic"  vary  in 
intensity  and  character  to  an  almost  indefinite  de- 
gree, not  only  in  different  individuals,  but  also  in 
the  same  individuals  when  submitted  to  different 
circumstances.     Those  of  them,  indeed,  which  are 

278 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

most  generally  felt,  are  often,  to  speak  strictly,  not 
so  much  desires  as  fancies;  and  while  the  image  of 
their  fulfilment  may  please  or  amuse  the  imagina- 
tion, their  non-fulfilment  produces  no  sense  of  want. 
So  long  as  they  are  merely  fancies,  they  raise  no 
practical  question.  They  raise  a  practical  question 
only  when  their  insistence  is  such  that  their  non- 
fulfilment  produces  an  active  sense  of  privation,  and 
whether  in  the  case  of  any  given  individual  they 
reach  or  do  not  reach  this  pitch  of  intensity  de- 
pends upon  two  things.  One  of  these  is  the  in- 
dividual's congenital  temperament,  his  talents,  his 
strength  of  will,  and  the  vividness  or  vagueness  of 
his  imagination.  Education,  understood  in  its 
more  general  sense,  is  the  other.  Now,  men  vary- 
ing as  they  do  in  respect  of  their  congenital  charac- 
ters, the  strength  of  their  romantic  wishes  bears 
naturally  some  proportion  to  their  own  capacities 
for  attempting  to  satisfy  these  wishes  for  them- 
selves. Few  men,  for  example,  have  naturally  a 
strong  wish  for  conditions  which  will  enable  them 
to  exercise  exceptional  power,  unless  they  are  con- 
scious of  possessing  exceptional  powers  to  exercise. 
Hence,  though  this  consciousness  is  in  many  cases 
deceptive,  the  struggle  of  men  for  power  is  con- 
fined within  narrow  limits,  and  the  disappoint- 
ments which  embitter  those  who  fail  to  attain  it  are 
naturally  confined  within  narrow  limits  also.  So 
long  as  matters  stand  thus,  the  majority  of  men  are 
unaffected.  But  wishes  which  are  naturally  con- 
fined to  exceptional   men,  who  are  more  or  less 

279 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

capable  of  realizing  them,  are  susceptible  by  edu- 
cation of  indefinite  extension  to  others  who  are 
not  so  qualified;  and  in  the  case  of  these  last,  the 
results  which  they  produce  are  different.  They 
multiply  the  number  of  those  who  demand  prefer- 
ential opportimities,  in  order  that  they  may  enter 
on  a  struggle  in  which  they  must  ultimately  fail. 

They  multiply  the  nimiber  of  those,  to  a  still 
greater  extent,  who  demand  that  positions  or  pos- 
sessions shall  be  somehow  provided  for  them  by 
society,  without  reference  to  any  struggle  on  their 
own  part  at  all.  The  artificial  diffusion  of  "wish" 
among  these  two  distinguishable  classes  is  thus 
accomplished  by  education  in  somewhat  different 
ways ;  but  the  modus  operandi  is  in  one  respect  the 
same  in  both.  It  consists  of  an  artificial  enlarging, 
in  the  case  of  all  individuals  alike,  of  the  ideas  en- 
tertained by  them  of  their  natural  social  rights, 
and  an  active  craving  is  thus  generalized  for  posses- 
sions and  modes  of  life,  which  nine  men  out  of  ten 
would  otherwise  have  never  wasted  a  thought  upon, 
and  which  not  one  out  of  ten  can  possibly  make  his 
own.  How  easily  this  idea  of  rights  is  susceptible 
of  enlargement  by  teaching,  and  how  efficient  it  is 
in  creating  a  desire  where  none  would  have  existed 
otherwise,  is  vividly  illustrated  by  those  not  in- 
frequent cases  in  which  men,  who  for  half  their  lives 
have  considered  themselves  fortunate  in  the  pos- 
session of  moderate  affluence,  have  suddenly  been 
led  to  suppose  themselves  the  heirs  of  peerages 
or  great  estates,  and  have  died  insane  or  bankrupt 

280 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

in  consequence  of  their  vain  endeavors  to  secure 
rank  or  property  which,  had  it  not  been  for  a 
purely  adventitious  idea,  would  have  affected  their 
hopes  and  wishes  no  more  than  the  moon  did.  It 
is  precisely  in  this  manner  that  much  of  the  educa- 
tion of  to-day  operates  in  consequence  of  current 
attempts  to  equalize  it ;  and  since  education  is  the 
cause  of  the  evils  here  in  question,  it  is  in  some 
reform  of  education  that  we  must  hope  to  find  a 
cure.  What  the  general  nature  of  this  reform  would 
be  can  be  indicated  in  a  few  words.  It  would  not 
involve  a  reversal,  it  would  involve  a  modification 
only,  of  the  principle  now  in  vogue,  and  can,  in- 
deed, best  be  expressed  by  means  of  the  same  for- 
mula, if  we  do  but  add  to  it  a  single  qualifying  word 
— that  is  to  say,  the  word  "relative"  prefixed  to 
the  word  "equality,"  when  we  speak  of  equality  of 
opportunity  as  the  end  at  which  we  ought  to  aim. 
Let  me  explain  my  meaning. 

The  logical  end  of  all  action  is  happiness,  and 
happiness,  so  far  as  it  depends  on  economic  condi- 
tions at  all,  is  an  equation  between  desire  and  at- 
tainment. The  capacities  of  men  being  unequal, 
and  the  objects  of  desire  which  they  could,  under 
the  most  favorable  circumstances,  make  their  own, 
being  unequal  likewise,  the  ideal  object  of  education, 
as  a  means  to  happiness,  is  twofold.  It  is,  on  the 
one  hand,  so  to  develop  each  man's  congenital 
faculties  as  to  raise  them  to  their  maximum  power 
of  providing  him  with  what  he  desires;  and  on  the 
other  hand  to  limit  his  desires,  by  a  due  regulation 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

of  his  expectations,  to  such  objects  as  his  faculties, 
when  thus  developed,  render  approximately  if  not 
completely  attainable.  Thus,  relatively  to  the  in- 
dividual, the  ideal  object  of  education  is  in  all  cases 
the  same ;  but  since  individuals  are  not  equal  to  one 
another,  education,  if  it  is  to  perform  an  equal 
service  for  each,  must  be  in  its  absolute  character 
to  an  indefinite  extent  various;  just  as  a  tailor,  if 
he  is  to  give  to  all  his  customers  equal  oppor- 
tunities of  being  well  dressed,  will  not  offer  them 
coats  of  the  same  size  and  pattern.  He  will  offer 
them  coats  which  are  equal  only  in  this — namely, 
their  equally  successful  adaptation  to  the  figures 
of  their  respective  wearers. 

Of  course,  so  to  graduate  any  actual  course  of 
education  that  in  the  case  of  each  individual  it  is 
the  best  which  it  is  possible  to  conceive  for  him — 
that  it  should  at  once  enable  him  to  make  the  most 
of  his  powers,  and  "regulate,"  as  Ruskin  says,  "his 
imagination  and  his  hopes"  in  accordance  with 
them,  would  require  a  clairvoyance  and  prevision 
not  given  to  man;  but  the  end  here  specified — 
namely,  an  equality  of  opportunity  which  is  rel- 
ative— is  the  only  kind  of  equality  which  is  even 
theoretically  possible;  and  it  is  one,  moreover,  to 
which  a  constant  approximation  can  be  made.  The 
absolute  equality  which  is  contemplated  by  social- 
ists, and  by  others  who  are  more  or  less  vaguely 
influenced  by  socialistic  sentiment,  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, an  ideal  which  either  could  not  be  realized 
at  all,  or  which,  in  proportion  as  it  was  realized. 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

would  be  ruinous  to  the  nation  which  provided  it, 
and  would  bring  nothing  but  disappointment  to 
those  who  were  most  importunate  in  demanding  it. 
The  only  conceivable  means,  indeed,  by  which  it 
could  be  extended  beyond  the  first  few  years  of 
life,  would  be  by  a  constant  process  of  handicap- 
ping— that  is  to  say,  by  applying  to  education  the 
same  policy  that  trade-unions  apply  to  ordinary 
labor.  If  one  bricklayer  has  layed  more  bricks 
than  his  fellows,  he  virtually  has  to  wait  until  the 
others  have  caught  him  up.  Similarly,  if  equality 
of  opportunity,  other  than  an  equality  that  is  rela- 
tive, was  to  be  maintained  in  the  sphere  of  edu- 
cation, a  clever  boy  who  had  learned  to  speak 
German  in  a  year  would  have  to  be  coerced  into 
idleness  until  every  dunce  among  his  classmates 
could  speak  it  as  well  as  he,  and  a  similar  process 
would  be  repeated  in  after  life.  This  policy,  as 
has  been  pointed  out  already,  is,  even  if  waste- 
ful, not  ruinous  in  the  sphere  of  ordinary  labor 
— a  fact  which  shows  how  wide  the  difference  is 
between  the  ordinary  faculties,  as  applied  to  indus- 
try, and  the  exceptional;  but  no  one  in  his  senses, 
not  even  the  most  ardent  apostle  of  equality,  would 
dream  of  recommending  its  application  to  efforts 
of  a  higher  kind,  and  demand  that  the  clever  boys 
should  periodically  be  made  to  wait  for  the  stupid, 
or  that  the  best  doctor  in  the  presence  of  a  great 
pestilence  should  not  be  allowed  to  cure  more 
patients  than  the  worst  one. 

If,  then,  it  is,  as  it  must  be,  the  ideal  aim  of  social 
283 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

arrangements  generally  to  enable  each  to  raise  his 
capacities  to  their  practical  maximum,  and  adjust 
his  desires  and  his  expectations  to  the  practical 
possibilities  of  attainment,  "relative  equality  of 
opportunity,"  firstly  in  education  and  secondly  in 
practical  life,  is  a  formula  which  accurately  ex- 
presses the  means  by  which  this  end  is  to  be  secured ; 
but  the  absolute  equality  which  is  contemplated  by 
socialists  and  others  is  an  ideal  which,  the  moment 
we  attempted  to  translate  it  into  terms  of  the  actual, 
would  begin  to  fall  to  pieces,  defeating  its  own  pur- 
pose; and  there  is  nothing  in  socialism,  were 
socialism  otherwise  practicable,  any  more  than 
there  is  in  the  existing  system,  which  would  obviate 
this  result. 

Indeed,  it  may  be  observed  further  that,  though 
the  idea  of  equality  of  opportunity  in  general  is  not 
inconsistent  with  a  socialistic  scheme  of  society,  as 
socialists  of  the  more  thoughtful  kind  have  now 
come  to  conceive  of  it,  it  belongs  essentially  to 
the  domain  of  the  fiercest  individual  competition. 
For  in  so  far  as  socialism  differs  from  ordinary  in- 
dividualism, it  differs  from  it  in  this  —  that,  in- 
stead of  encouraging  each  man  to  do  his  utmost  be- 
cause what  he  gets  will  be  proportionate  to  what  he 
does,  it  aims  at  establishing  a  greater  equality  in 
what  men  get  by  making  this  independent  of 
whether  they  do  much  or  little,  in  which  case  the 
main  concern  of  the  individual  would  be  the  cer- 
tainty of  getting  what  he  wanted,  not  the  oppor- 
tunity of  producing  it. 

284 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

The  three  ideas  or  conceptions,  then,  which 
have  engaged  our  attention  in  this  and  the  three 
preceding  chapters — namely,  the  idea  that  labor 
does,  as  a  statistical  fact,  produce  far  more  in 
values  than  it  at  present  gets  back  in  wages;  the 
idea  that  the  mass  of  the  population  could  per- 
manently augment  its  resources  by  confiscating  all 
dividends  as  fast  as  they  became  due,  and  the  idea 
that  it  is  possible  to  provide  for  tmequal  men,  for 
more  than  a  moment  of  their  lives,  equal  oppor- 
tunities of  experimenting  with  their  real  or  imagi- 
nary powers,  are  ideas,  indeed,  which  have  all  the 
vices  characteristic  of  socialistic  thought;  but  the 
first  and  the  third  have  no  necessary  connection 
with  socialism,  and  the  second  is  not  peculiar  to  it. 
We  will  now  return  to  it  as  a  system  of  exclusive 
and  distinctive  doctrines,  and  sum  up,  in  general 
terms,  the  conclusions  to  which  our  examination  of 
it  is  calculated  to  lead  far-seeing  and  practical  men, 
and  more  especially  active  politicians. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE   SOCIAL    POLICY   OF   THE   FUTURE 

THE    MORAL    OF    THIS    BOOK 

This  book,  though  consisting  of  negative  criticism  and  analy- 
sis of  facts,  and  not  trenching  on  the  domain  of  practical  policy 
and  constructive  suggestion,  aims  at  facilitating  a  rational  so- 
cial policy  by  placing  in  their  true  perspective  the  main  statical 
facts  and  dynamic  forces  of  the  modem  economic  world,  which 
socialism  merely  confuses. 

In  pointing  out  the  limitations  of  labor  as  a  prodtictive 
agency,  and  the  dependence  of  the  laborers  on  a  class  other 
than  their  own,  it  does  not  seek  to  represent  the  aspirations  of 
the  former  to  participate  in  the  benefits  of  progress  as  illusory, 
but  rather  to  place  such  aspirations  on  a  scientific  basis,  and 
so  to  remove  what  is  at  present  the  principal  obstacle  that 
stands  in  the  way  of  a  rational  and  scientific  social  policy. 

I  WAS  in  America  constantly  asked  by  socialists 
whether  I  really  believed  that  society,  as  it  is,  is 
perfect,  and  that  there  are  no  evils  and  defects  in 
it  which  are  crying  aloud  for  remedy.  Unless  I 
believed  this — and  that  I  could  do  so  was  hardly 
credible — I  ought,  they  said,  if  I  endeavored  to 
discredit  the  remedy  proposed  by  themselves,  to 
suggest  another,  which  would  be  better  and  equally 
general,  of  my  own. 

Now  such  an  objection,  as  it  stands,  I  might  dis- 
286 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

miss  by  curtly  observing  that  I  did  not,  and  could 
not,  suggest  any  remedy  other  than  socialism, 
partly  because  the  purport  of  my  entire  argument 
was  that  socialism,  if  realized,  would  not  be  a 
remedy  at  all,  and  partly  because,  for  the  evils  that 
afflict  society,  no  general  remedy  of  any  kind  is 
possible.  The  diseases  of  society  are  various,  and 
of  various  origin,  and  there  is  no  one  drug  in  the 
pharmacopoeia  of  social  reform  which  will  cure  or 
even  touch  them  all,  just  as  there  is  no  one  drug 
in  the  pharmacopoeia  of  doctors  which  will  cure 
appendicitis,  mumps,  sea-sickness,  and  pneumonia 
indifferently — which  will  stop  a  hollow  tooth  and 
allay  the  pains  of  childbirth. 

But  though  such  an  answer  would  be  at  once  fair 
and  sufficient,  if  we  take  the  objection  in  the  spirit 
in  which  my  critics  urged  it,  the  objection  has  more 
significance  than  they  themselves  suspected,  and  it 
requires  to  be  answered  in  a  very  different  way. 
Socialism  may  be  worthless  as  a  scheme,  but  it  is 
not  meaningless  as  a  symptom.  Rousseau's  theory 
of  the  origin  of  society,  of  the  social  contract,  and 
of  a  cure  for  all  social  evils  by  a  return  to  a  state  of 
nature,  had,  as  we  all  know  now,  no  more  relation 
to  fact  than  the  dreams  of  an  illiterate  drunkard; 
but  they  were  not  without  value  as  a  vague  and 
symbolical  expression  of  certain  evils  from  which 
the  France  of  his  day  was  suffering.  As  a  child, 
I  was  told  a  story  of  an  old  woman  in  Devonshire 
who,  describing  what  was  apparently  some  form  of 
dyspepsia,  said  that  "her  inside  had  been  coming 

287 


A   CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

up  for  a  fortnight,"  and  still  continued  to  do  so, 
although  during  the  last  few  days  "  she  had  swallow- 
ed a  pint  of  shot  in  order  to  keep  her  liver  down." 
The  old  woman's  diagnosis  of  her  own  case  was 
ridiculous;  her  treatment  of  it,  if  continued,  would 
have  killed  her;  but  both  were  suggestive,  as  in- 
dications that  something  was  really  amiss.  The 
reasoning  of  Rousseau,  who  contended  that  the 
evils  of  the  modern  world  were  due  to  a  departure 
from  primeval  conditions  which  were  perfect,  and 
that  a  cure  for  them  must  be  sought  in  a  return  to 
the  manner  of  life  which  prevailed  among  the  con- 
temporaries of  the  mammoth,  and  the  immediate 
descendants  of  the  pithekanthropos,  was  identical 
in  kind  with  the  reasoning  of  the  old  woman.  The 
reasoning  of  the  socialists  is  identical  in  kind  with 
both.  It  consists  of  a  poisonous  prescription  found- 
ed on  a  false  diagnosis.  But  just  as  the  diagnosis, 
no  matter  how  grotesque,  which  a  patient  makes  of 
his  or  of  her  own  sufferings,  and  even  the  remedies 
which  his  or  her  fancy  suggests,  often  assist  doctors 
to  discover  what  the  ailment  really  is,  so  does 
socialism,  alike  in  its  diagnosis  and  its  proposed 
cure,  call  attention  to  the  existence  of  ailments  in 
the  body  politic,  and  may  even  afford  some  clew 
to  the  treatment  which  the  case  requires,  though 
this  will  be  widely  different  from  what  the  sufferer 
fancies. 

Such  being  the  case,  then,  in  order  that  a  true 
treatment  may  be  adopted,  the  first  thing  to  be 
done  is  to  show  the  corporate  patient  precisely  how 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM: 

and  why  the  socialistic  diagnosis  is  erroneous,  and 
the  proposed  socialistic  remedies  incomparably 
worse  than  the  disease.  To  this  preparatory  work 
the  present  volume  has  been  devoted.  Let  us 
reconsider  the  outline  of  its  general  argument.  As 
socialists  to-day  are  themselves  coming  to  admit, 
the  augmented  wealth  distinctive  of  the  modern 
world  is  produced  and  sustained  by  the  ability  of 
the  few,  not  by  the  labor  of  the  many.  The 
ability  of  the  few  is  thus  productive  in  the  modern 
world  in  a  manner  in  which  it  never  was  productive 
in  any  previous  period,  because,  whereas  in  earlier 
ages  the  strongest  wills  and  the  keenest  practical 
intellects  were  devoted  to  military  conquest  and 
the  necessities  of  military  defence,  they  have,  in  the 
modern  world,  to  a  constantly  increasing  degree, 
been  deflected  from  the  pursuits  of  war  and  con- 
centrated on  those  of  industry.  But  the  old  prin- 
ciple remains  in  operation  still,  of  which  military 
leadership  was  only  one  special  exemplification. 
Nations  now  grow  rich  through  industry  as  they 
once  grew  rich  through  conquest,  because  new  com- 
manders, with  a  precision  unknown  on  battle-fields, 
direct  the  minutest  operations  of  armies  of  a  new 
kind,  and  the  only  terms  on  which  any  modern 
nation  can  maintain  its  present  productivity,  or 
hope  to  increase  it  in  the  future,  consist  in  the 
technical  submission  of  the  majority  of  men  to  the 
guidance  of  an  exceptional  minority.  As  for  the 
majority — the  mass  of  average  workers — they  pro- 
duce to-day  just  as  much  as,  and  no  more  than, 

289 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

they  would  produce  if  the  angel  of  some  industrial 
Passover  were  henceforward  to  kill,  each  year  on  a 
particular  day,  every  human  being  who  had  risen 
above  the  level  of  his  fellows,  and,  in  virtue  of  his 
knowledge,  ingenuity,  genius,  energy,  and  initiative, 
was  capable  of  directing  his  fellows  better  than  they 
could  direct  themselves.  If  such  an  annual  dec- 
imation were  inaugurated  to-morrow  in  civilized 
countries  such  as  Great  Britain  and  America,  the 
mass  of  the  population  would  soon  sink  into  a 
poverty  deeper  and  more  helpless  than  that  which 
was  their  lot  before  the  ability  of  the  few,  operating 
through  modern  capital,  began  to  lend  to  the  many 
an  efficiency  not  their  own.  In  other  words,  the 
entire  "surplus  values" — to  adopt  the  phrase  of 
Marx — which  have  been  produced  during  the  last 
hundred  and  fifty  years,  have  been  produced  by  the 
ability  of  the  few,  and  the  ability  of  the  few  only; 
and  every  advance  in  wages,  and  every  addition  to 
the  general  conveniences  of  life,  which  the  labor- 
ers now  enjoy,  is  a  something  over  and  above  what 
they  produce  by  their  own  exertions.  It  is  a  gift 
to  the  many  from  the  few,  or,  at  all  events,  it  has 
its  origin  in  the  sustentation  and  the  multiplication 
of  their  efforts,  and  would  shrink  in  proportion  as 
these  efforts  were  impeded.  If,  then,  the  claims 
which  socialists  put  forward  on  behalf  of  labor  are 
really  to  be  based,  as  the  earlier  socialists  based  them, 
on  the  ground  that  production  alone  gives  a  valid 
right  to  possession,  labor  to-day,  instead  of  getting 
less  than  its  due,  is,  if  we  take  it  in  the  aggregate, 

290 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

getting  incomparably  more,  and  justice  in  that  case 
would  require  that  the  vast  majority  of  mankind 
should  have  its  standards  of  living  not  raised  but 
lowered. 

Is  it,  then,  the  reader  will  here  ask,  the  object  of 
the  present  volume  to  suggest  that  the  true  course 
of  social  reform  in  the  future  would  be  gradually  to 
take  away  from  the  majority  some  portion  of  what 
they  at  present  possess,  and  bind  them  down,  in 
accordance  with  the  teaching  of  socialists  in  the 
past,  to  the  little  maximum  which  they  could  pro- 
duce by  their  own  unaided  efforts?  The  moral  of 
the  present  volume  is  the  precise  reverse  of  this. 
Its  object  is  not  to  suggest  that  they  should  possess 
no  more  than  they  produce.  It  is  to  place  their 
claim  to  a  certain  surplus  not  produced  by  them- 
selves on  a  true  instead  of  a  fantastic  basis. 

Socialists  seek  to  base  the  claim  in  question,  al- 
ternately and  sometimes  simultaneously,  on  two 
grounds — one  moral,  the  other  practical — which  are 
alike  futile  and  fallacious,  and  are  also  incompati- 
ble with  each  other.  The  former  consists  of  the  h 
priori  moral  doctrine  that  every  one  has  a  right  to 
what  he  produces,  and  consequently  to  no  more. 
The  latter  consists  of  an  assumption  that  those  who 
produce  most  will,  in  deference  to  a  standard  of 
right  of  a  wholly  different  kind,  surrender  their 
own  products  to  those  who  produce  least.  The 
practical  assumption  is  childish;  and  the  abstract 
moral  doctrine  can  only  lead  to  a  conclusion  the 
opposite  of  that  which  those  who  appeal  to  it  de- 

291 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

sire.  But  the  claim  in  question  may,  when  reduced 
to  reasonable  proportions,  be  defended  on  grounds 
both  moral  and  practical,  nevertheless,  and  the 
present  volume  aims  at  rendering  these  intelligible. 
Let  us  return  for  a  moment  to  Rousseau  and  his 
theory  of  the  social  contract.  We  know  to-day 
that  never  in  the  entire  history  of  mankind  did  any 
such  conscious  contract  as  Rousseau  imagined  take 
place ;  but  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  virtually,  and 
by  ultimate  implication,  something  like  a  contract 
or  bargain  underlies  the  relation  between  classes 
in  all  states  of  society. 

When  one  man  contracts  to  sell  a  horse  for  a  cer- 
tain price,  and  another  man  to  pay  that  price  for  it, 
the  price  in  question  is  agreed  to  because  the  buyer 
says  to  himself  on  the  one  hand,  "If  I  do  not  con- 
sent to  pay  so  much,  I  shall  lose  the  horse,  which 
is  to  me  worth  more  than  the  money";  and  the 
seller  says  to  himself  on  the  other  hand,  "If  I  do 
not  consent  to  accept  so  little,  I  shall  lose  the  money, 
which  is  to  me  worth  more  than  the  horse."  Each 
bases  his  argument  on  a  conscious  or  subconscious 
reference  to  the  situation  which  will  arise  if  the 
bargain  is  not  concluded.  Similarly,  when  any 
nation  submits  to  a  foreign  rule,  and  forbears  to 
revolt  though  it  feels  that  rule  distasteful,  it  for- 
bears because,  either  consciously  or  subconsciously, 
it  feels  that  the  existing  situation,  whatever  its 
drawbacks,  is  preferable  to  that  which  would  arise 
from  any  violent  attempt  to  change  it.  The  same 
thing  holds  good  of  the  laboring  classes  as  a  whole, 

292 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

as  related  to  those  classes  who,  in  the  modem 
world,  direct  them.  By  implication,  if  not  con- 
sciously, they  are  partners  to  a  certain  bargain. 
They  are  not  partners  to  a  bargain  because  they 
consent  to  labor,  for  there  is  no  bargaining  with 
necessity ;  and  they  would  have  to  labor  in  any  case, 
if  they  wished  to  remain  alive.  They  are  partners 
to  a  bargain  because  they  consent  to  labor  under 
the  direction  of  other  people.  It  is  true  that,  as 
regards  the  present  and  the  near  future,  they  are 
confronted  by  necessity  even  here.  This  is  ob- 
viously true  of  countries  such  as  Great  Britain,  in 
which,  if  the  labor  of  the  many  were  not  elaborately 
organized  by  the  few,  three-fourths  of  the  present 
population  would  be  unable  to  obtain  bread.  Nev- 
ertheless, if  we  take  a  wider  view  of  affairs,  and 
consider  what,  without  violating  possibility,  might 
conceivably  take  place  in  the  course  of  a  few  dis- 
astrous centuries,  the  mass  of  modern  laborers 
might  gradually  secede  from  the  position  which  they 
at  present  occupy,  and,  spreading  themselves  in 
families  or  small  industrial  groups  over  the  vast 
agricultural  areas  which  still  remain  unoccupied, 
might  keep  themselves  alive  by  laboring  under 
their  own  direction,  as  men  have  done  in  earlier 
ages,  and  as  savages  do  still.  They  would  have,  on 
the  whole,  to  labor  far  harder  than  they  do  now, 
and  to  labor  for  a  reward  which,  on  the  whole,  would 
be  incomparably  less  than  that  which  is  attainable 
to-day  by  all  labor  except  the  lowest.  Moreover, 
their  condition  would  have  all  the  "instability" 
20  293 


A   CRITICAL    EXAMINATION    OF   SOCIALISM 

which,  as  Spencer  rightly  says,  is  inseparable  from 
"the  homogeneous."  It  could  not  last.  Still, 
while  it  lasted,  they  could  live;  and,  in  theory  at  all 
events,  the  mass  of  the  human  race  must  be  rec- 
ognized as  capable  of  keeping  themselves  alive  by 
the  labor  of  pairs  of  hands  which,  in  each  case,  are 
undirected  by  any  intelligence  superior  to,  or  other 
than,  the  laborer's  own.  In  theory  at  all  events, 
therefore,  this  self-supporting  multitude  would  be 
capable  of  choosing  whether  they  would  continue 
in  this  condition  of  industrial  autonomy,  with  all 
its  hardships,  its  scant  results,  and  its  unceasing 
toil,  or  would  submit  their  labor  to  the  guidance  of 
a  minority  more  capable  than  themselves.  Such 
being  the  case,  then,  if  by  submitting  themselves 
to  the  guidance  of  others  they  were  to  get  nothing 
more  than  they  could  produce  when  left  to  their 
own  devices,  they  would,  in  surrendering  their  au- 
tonomy, be  giving  something  for  nothing — a  trans- 
action which  could  not  be  voluntary,  and  would  be 
not  the  less  unjust  because,  as  all  history  shows 
us,  they  would  be  ultimately  unable  to  resist  it. 
Justice  demands  that  a  surrender  of  one  kind,  made 
by  one  party,  should  be  paid  for  by  a  correspond- 
ing surrender  of  another  kind,  made  by  the  other 
party;  which  last  can  only  take  the  form  of  a  con- 
cession to  labor,  as  a  right,  of  some  portion  of  a 
product  which  labor  does  not  produce.  Labor  can, 
on  grounds  of  general  moral  justice,  claim  this  as 
compensation  for  acquiescence,  even  though  the  ac- 
quiescence may,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  be  involimtary. 

294 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

Human  nature,  however,  being  what  it  is,  these 
purely  moral  considerations  would  probably  have 
little  significance  if  they  were  not  reinforced  by 
others  of  a  more  immediately  practical  kind.  Let 
us  now  turn  to  these.  The  motive  which  prompts 
labor  to  demand  more  than  it  produces  is  itself 
primarily  not  moral,  but  practical,  and  is  so  ob- 
vious as  to  need  no  comment.  What  concerns  us 
here  is  the  practical,  as  distinct  from  any  moral, 
motive,  which  must,  when  the  situation  is  under- 
stood, make  ability  anxious  to  concede  it.  For 
argument's  sake  we  must  assume  that  the  great 
producers  of  wealth  are  men  who  have  no  other 
motive  ultimately  than  ambition  for  themselves 
and  their  families,  and  would  allow  nothing  of  what 
they  produce  to  be  taken  from  them  by  any  other 
human  being  except  under  the  pressure  of  some  inci- 
dental necessity.  There  is  one  broad  feature,  how- 
ever, which  even  men  such  as  these  understand — 
the  fact — namely,  that  for  successful  wealth-produc- 
tion one  of  the  most  essential  conditions  is  a  con- 
dition of  social  stability,  or  a  general  acquiescence 
at  all  events  in  the  broad  features  of  the  industrial 
system  by  means  of  which  the  production  in  ques- 
tion takes  place.  But  if  the  laborers  have  no  stake 
in  the  surplus  for  the  production  of  which  such  a 
system  is  requisite,  it  may  be  perfectly  true  that  by 
escaping  from  it  they  would  on  the  whole  be  no 
better  off  than  they  are,  yet  there  is  no  reason  which 
can  be  brought  home  to  their  own  minds  why  they 
should  not  seek  to  disturb  it  as  often  and  as  reck- 

295 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

lessly  as  they  can.  There  is,  at  best,  no  structural 
connection,  but  only  a  frictional  one,  between  their 
own  welfare  and  the  welfare  of  those  who  direct 
them;  and  a  structural  connection  between  the 
two — a  dovetailing  of  the  one  into  the  other — is 
what  ability,  no  matter  how  selfish,  is  in  its  own 
interests  concerned  before  all  things  to  secure. 
In  other  words,  it  is  concerned  in  its  own  interests 
so  to  arrange  matters  that  the  share  of  its  own 
products  which  is  made  over  to  the  laborers  shall 
be  large  enough,  and  obvious  enough,  and  suffi- 
ciently free  from  accessory  disadvantages,  to  be 
appreciated  by  the  laborers  themselves;  and  the 
ideal  state  of  social  equilibrium  would  be  reached 
when  this  share  was  such  that  any  further  augmen- 
tation of  it  would  enfeeble  the  action  of  ability  by 
depriving  it  of  its  necessary  stimulus,  and,  by  thus 
diminishing  the  amount  of  the  total  product,  would 
make  the  share  of  the  laborers  less  than  it  was 
before. 

Though  an  ideal  equilibrium  of  this  kind  may  be 
never  attainable  absolutely,  it  is  a  condition  to 
which  practical  wisdom  may  be  always  making 
approximations;  but  in  order  that  it  may  be  an 
equilibrium  in  fact  as  well  as  in  theory,  one  thing 
further  is  necessary  —  namely,  that  both  parties 
should  understand  clearly  the  fundamental  charac- 
ter of  the  situation.  And  here  labor  has  more  to 
learn  than  ability;  or  perhaps  it  may  be  truer  to 
say  that  socialism  has  given  it  more  to  unlearn. 
If  any  exchange  takes  place  between  two  people, 

296 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

which  by  anybody  who  knew  all  the  circttmstances 
wotild  be  recognized  as  entirely  just,  but  is  not  felt 
to  be  just  by  one  of  the  contracting  parties,  he, 
though  he  may  assent  to  the  terms  because  he  can 
get  none  better,  will  be  as  much  dissatisfied  as  he 
would  have  been  had  he  been  actually  overreached 
by  the  other.  If,  for  example,  he  believed  him- 
self to  be  entitled  to  an  estate  of  which  the  other 
was  in  reality  not  only  the  de  facto,  but  also  the 
true  legal  possessor,  and  if  the  other,  out  of  kind- 
ness (let  us  say)  towards  a  distant  kinsman,  agreed 
to  pay  him  a  pension,  he  would  doubtless  accept 
the  pension  as  a  something  that  was  better  than 
nothing;  but  he  would  not  be  satisfied  with  a  part 
when  he  conceived  himself  to  be  entitled  to  the 
whole,  and  as  soon  as  occasion  offered  would  go  to 
law  to  obtain  it.  In  other  words,  if  two  persons  are 
to  make  a  bargain  or  contract  which  can  possibly 
satisfy  both,  each  must  start  with  recognizing  that 
the  other  has  some  valid  right,  and  what  the  nature 
of  this  right  is,  to  the  property  or  position  which 
is  held  by  him  and  which  is  the  subject  of  the 
projected  exchange.  Unless  this  be  the  case,  any 
exchange  that  may  be  effected  will,  for  one  of  the 
parties  at  least,  not  be  a  true  bargain  or  contract, 
but  an  enforced  and  temporary  compromise.  There 
will  be  no  finality  in  it,  and  it  will  produce  no 
content. 

Now  in  the  case  of  the  bargain  or  contract  be- 
tween labor  and  ability,  this  last  situation  is 
precisely  that  which  the  teachings  of  socialism  are 

297 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

at  present  tending  to  generalize.  They  are  en- 
couraging the  representatives  of  labor  to  regard 
the  representatives  of  ability  as  a  class  which 
possesses  much,  but  has  no  valid  right  to  anything, 
and  with  whom  in  consequence  no  true  bargain  is 
possible;  since,  w^hatever  this  class  concedes  short 
of  its  whole  possessions  will  merely  be  accepted  by 
labor  as  a  surrender  of  stolen  goods,  which  merits 
resentment  rather  than  thanks,  because  it  is  only 
partial. 

The  intellectual  socialists  of  to-day,  and  many  of 
their  less  educated  followers,  will  strenuously  deny 
this.  They  will  declare  that  they,  unlike  their 
predecessors,  recognize  that  directive  ability  is  a 
true  productive  agent  no  less  than  ordinary  labor 
is;  and  that  able  men,  no  less  than  the  laborers, 
have  rights  which  they  may,  if  they  choose,  enforce 
w^ith  equal  justice.  And  if  we  confine  our  attention 
to  certain  of  their  theoretical  admissions,  we  need 
not  go  further  than  the  pages  of  the  present  volume 
to  remind  ourselves  that  for  this  assertion  there  are 
ample,  if  disjointed,  foundations.  But  the  doctrine 
of  modern  socialism  must  be  judged,  not  only  by  its 
separate  parts,  but  also  by  the  emphasis  with  which 
they  are  respectively  enunciated,  and  by  the  mood 
of  mind  which,  on  the  whole,  it  engenders  among 
the  majority  of  those  who  are  affected  by  it;  and 
whatever  its  leading  exponents  may,  on  occasion, 
protest  to  the  contrary,  the  main  practical  result 
which  it  has  thus  far  produced  among  the  masses 
has  been  to  foment  the  impression,  which  is  not  the 

298 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

less  efficacious  because  it  is  not  explicitly  formu- 
lated, that  when  labor  and  ability  are  disputing 
over  their  respective  rights,  ability  comes  into  court 
with  no  genuine  rights  at  all;  and  that,  instead  of 
representing  (as  it  does)  the  knowledge,  intellect, 
and  energy  to  which  the  whole  surplus  values  of 
the  modern  world  are  due,  it  represents  merely  a  sys- 
tem of  decently  legalized  theft  from  an  output  of 
wealth  which  would  lose  nothing  of  its  amplitude, 
but  would  on  the  contrary  still  continue  to  increase 
were  all  exceptional  energy,  knowledge,  and  intel- 
lect deprived  of  all  authority  and  starved  out  of 
existence  to-morrow. 

So  long  as  such  an  impression  prevails,  and  in- 
deed until  it  is  definitely  superseded  by  one  more  in 
consonance  with  facts,  no  satisfactory  social  policy 
is  practicable.  Labor,  as  opposed  to  ability,  may 
be  compared  to  a  man  who  believes  that  his  tailor 
has  overcharged  him  for  a  coat,  and  who  disputes 
the  account  in  a  law  court  with  a  view  to  its  rea- 
sonable reduction.  In  such  a  case  it  will  be  pos- 
sible for  him  to  obtain  justice.  The  tailor's  claim 
for  sixty  dollars  may  be  reduced  to  a  claim  for 
fifty,  or  for  forty-eight,  or  for  forty-six,  or  for  forty- 
five.  But  if  the  customer's  contention  is  that  he 
ought  to  get  the  coat  for  nothing,  and  that  he  does 
not  in  justice  owe  the  tailor  anything  at  all,  he  is 
making  a  demand  that  no  law  court  could  satisfy, 
and  by  a  gratuitous  misconception  of  his  rights  is 
doing  all  he  can  to  preclude  himself  from  any  chance 
of   obtaining   them.     The   mood    which   socialism 

299 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

foments  among  the  laboring  classes  is  precisely 
analogous  to  the  mood  of  such  a  man  as  this,  and  its 
results  are  analogous  likewise.  Its  origin,  however, 
being  artificial  and  also  obvious  in  its  minutest 
particulars,  the  remedy  for  it,  however  difficult 
to  apply,  is  not  obscure  in  its  nature.  The  mood 
in  question  results  from  a  definite,  a  systematic, 
and  an  artificially  produced  misconception  of  the 
structure  and  the  main  phenomena,  good  and  evil, 
of  society  as  it  exists  to-day,  and  the  different  parts 
played  by  the  different  classes  composing  it.  It 
has  been  the  object  of  the  present  volume  to  expose, 
one  after  another,  the  individual  fallacies  of  which 
this  general  misconception  is  the  result,  not  with  a 
view  to  suggesting  that  in  society  as  it  exists  to- 
day there  are  no  grave  evils  which  a  true  social 
policy  may  alleviate,  but  with  a  view  to  promoting 
between  classes,  who  are  at  present  in  needless  an- 
tagonism, that  sane  and  sober  understanding  with 
regard  to  their  respective  positions  which  alone  can 
form  the  basis  of  any  sound  social  policy  in  the 
future. 

Of  the  individual  demands  or  proposals  now  put 
forward  by  socialists,  many  point  to  objects  which 
are  individually  desirable  and  are  within  limits 
practicable ;  but  what  hinders,  more  than  anything 
else,  any  successful  attempt  to  realize  them  is  the 
fact  that  they  are  at  present  placed  in  a  false  set- 
ting. They  resemble  a  demand  for  candles  on  the 
part  of  visitors  at  an  hotel,  who  would  have,  if  they 
did  not  get  them,  to  go  to  bed  in  the  dark — a  de- 

300 


A  CRITICAL   EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

mand  which  would  be  contested  by  nobody  if  it 
were  not  that  those  who  made  it  demanded  the 
candles  only  as  a  means  of  setting  fire  to  the  bed- 
curtains.  The  demands  for  old-age  pensions,  and 
for  government  action  on  behalf  of  the  unemployed, 
for  example,  as  now  put  forward  in  Great  Britain 
by  labor  members  who  identify  the  interests  of 
labor  with  socialism,  are  demands  of  this  precise 
kind.  The  care  of  the  aged,  the  care  of  the  un- 
willingly and  the  discipline  of  the  willingly  idle, 
are  among  the  most  important  objects  to  which 
social  statesmanship  can  address  itself;  but  the 
doctrines  of  socialism  hinder  instead  of  facilitating 
the  accomplishment  of  them,  because  they  identify 
the  cure  of  certain  diseased  parts  of  the  social  or- 
ganism with  a  treatment  that  would  be  ruinous  to 
the  health  and  ultimately  to  the  life  of  the  whole. 
We  may,  however,  look  forward  to  a  time,  and 
may  do  our  best  to  hasten  it,  when,  the  fallacies  of 
socialism  being  discredited  and  the  mischief  which 
they  produce  having  exhausted  itself,  we  may  be 
able  to  recognize  that  they  have  done  permanent 
good  as  well  as  temporary  evil  —  partly  because 
their  very  perverseness  and  their  varying  and  ac- 
cumulating absurdities  will  have  compelled  men  to 
recognize,  and  accept  as  self-evident,  the  counter- 
vailing truths  which  to  many  of  the  sanest  thinkers 
have  hitherto  remained  obscure;  and  partly  be- 
cause socialism,  no  matter  how  false  as  a  theory 
of  society,  and  no  matter  how  impracticable  as 
a  social  programme,  will  have  called  attention  to 

301 


A   CRITICAL   EXAMINATION    OF    SOCIALISM 

evils  which  might  otherwise  have  escaped  attention, 
or  been  relegated  to  the  class  of  evils  for  which  no 
alleviation  is  possible. 

Even  to  suggest  the  manner  in  which  these  evils 
would  be  treated  by  a  sound  and  scientific  states- 
manship would  be  wholly  beyond  the  scope  of  a 
volume  such  as  the  present,  for  this  reason,  if  for  no 
other,  that,  as  has  been  said  already,  the  evils  in 
question  are  not  one  but  many,  each  demanding 
special  and  separate  treatment,  just  as  ophthalmia 
demands  a  treatment  other  than  that  demanded 
by  whooping-cough.  But  one  general  observation 
may  be  fitly  made,  in  conclusion,  which  will  apply 
to  all  of  them.  These  remedies  cannot  be  included 
under  the  heading  of  any  mere  general  augmentation 
of  the  pecuniary  reward  of  labor  taken  in  the  aggre- 
gate. The  portion  of  the  national  dividend  which 
goes  to  labor  now,  in  progressive  countries  such  as 
Great  Britain,  Germany,  and  America,  is  immensely 
greater  than  it  was  a  hundred  years  ago,  and  unless 
industrial  progress  is  arrested  its  tendency  is  to 
rise  still  further.  The  main  evils  to  which  a  scien- 
tific statesmanship  should  address  itself  arise  from 
the  incidental  conditions  under  which  this  dividend 
is  spent — conditions,  largely  improvable,  which  at 
present  deprive  it  of  its  full  purchasing  power.  Of 
this  I  will  give  one  example — the  present  structure 
of  great  industrial  towns.  It  cannot  be  doubted 
that,  if  the  sums  now  spent  on  the  construction 
and  maintenance  of  insanitary  slums  and  alleys 
were  employed  in  a  scientific  manner,  a  rent  which 

302 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION   OF   SOCIALISM 

has  now  to  be  paid  for  accommodation  of  the 
most  degrading  kind  would  suffice  to  command, 
on  the  strictest  business  principles,  homes  superior 
to  those  which,  if  its  amount  were  doubled,  would 
hardly  be  forthcoming  for  the  laborer  in  most  of  our 
existing  streets ;  while  the  purchasing  power  of  the 
existing  income  of  labor  would  be  increased  con- 
currently, and  perhaps  to  a  yet  greater  extent,  if 
much  of  the  education,  which  now  has  no  other  ef- 
fect than  of  generating  impracticable  ideas  as  to  the 
abstract  rights  of  man,  were  devoted  to  developing 
in  men  and  women  alike  a  greater  mastery  of  the 
mere  arts  of  household  management. 

But  in  merely  mentioning  these  subjects  I  am 
transgressing  my  proper  limits.  I  mention  them 
only  with  a  view  to  reminding  the  reader  once  more 
that  the  object  of  this  volume  is  not  to  suggest,  or 
supply  arguments  for  maintaining,  that  existing 
conditions  are  perfect,  or  that  socialists  are  vision- 
aries in  declaring  that  they  are  capable  of  improve- 
ment. Its  object  has  been  to  expose  that  radical 
misconception  of  facts  which  renders  demands  vi- 
sionary that  would  not  be  visionary  otherwise,  and 
to  stimulate  all  sane  and  statesman-like  reformers  by 
helping  them  to  see,  and  also  to  explain  to  others, 
that  the  improved  conditions  which  socialism  blind- 
ly clamors  for  are  practicable  only  in  proportion  as 
they  are  dissociated  from  the  theories  of  socialism. 


THE    END 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


lOgl^ 


>ll:2 


Series  9482 


/VA    000  526  825    5 


H 


ii|iii||!i||||f|||ilj||g^^ 


